Duty and Glory

Responsibility First

Vice President J. D. Vance recently drew controversy when he quoted Thomas Aquinas in citing the "ordo amoris," or the "proper order of loving." Aquinas cited and expanded on the writings of St. Augustine when he explained that, given our limited capabilities, we obviously give more of our time and effort to those closest and most important to us.

Jonah McKeown of the Catholic News Agency had an excellent article about the issue. Vance's arguments are summarized in the following:

"[A]s an American leader, but also just as an American citizen, your compassion belongs first to your fellow citizens. It doesn't mean you hate people from outside of your own borders," Vance said Jan. 30.

"But there's this old-school [concept] — and I think a very Christian concept, by the way — that you love your family, and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country, and then after that you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world," he said.

McKeown's summary of Aquinas contains the following, which is, for me, the most divisive part of the immigration controversy:

Aquinas … concludes that God is to be loved first and foremost, followed by oneself, then neighbors, and among neighbors, he wrote that there are those who should be loved with a more intense affection, such as family.

The hierarchy laid out by Aquinas is not meant to diminish the importance of loving all people as Christ commanded but does acknowledge that certain relationships, practically speaking, carry more immediate obligations. For example, a married person has a higher obligation to care for his or her spouse than for others and an obligation to provide for his or her own children before providing for those in other places.

Think of this from the child's standpoint. Even within a family, there is contention for the attention of parents. But to have your parents absolutely fail to meet your needs – not your wants – your needs- to provide for the child of a stranger is morally unacceptable.

Parents have a moral duty to their children. There is no glory in fulfilling that duty. No plaques are handed out. No humanitarian awards are granted. But the parents aren't paying the price for the glory. The children are. These people are no better than those who waste the family's money at the bar or pub buying a round for everyone to be the life of the party. Or maybe they spend their time doing other than making sure there is someone to spend time with the children to hear them because there are more important things to do.

Politicians and others who think it is essential to care for various groups of dispirited people want to view them as forgotten and uncared for. Franklin Roosevelt used this term in a Fireside chat. Amity Shlaes' The Forgotten Man is a history of the Depression, offering a differing view of FDR's success in dealing with the economy. On the epigraph page, Shlaes contrasts FDR's definition of a "forgotten man" with the view of William Graham Sumner of Yale University in 1883.

As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine what C shall do for X or, in the better case, what A, B and C shall do for X…. [W]hat I want to do is to look up C. I want to show you what manner of man he is. I call him the Forgotten Man. Perhaps the appellation is not strictly correct. He is the man who never is thought of. … He works, he votes, generally he prays-- but he always pays--yes, above all, he pays.

In Sumner's view, C is the average citizen who has no say but bears the burden while X benefits and A and B get glory. In my "family" story, C is a child, and X is more favored. A and B are the adults in C's life. A

This concept of Sumner's Forgotten or Ignored Person describes the view of the average citizen of Europe or the Anglosphere about immigration. They are concerned primarily about the needs of their families and immediate neighbors. They are not xenophobic. But, unlike their leadership, they're also not oikophobic.

I'm reminded of the story of children's Sunday school, where little Johnny is told to love all the people in the world. He says he has no trouble with that if he doesn't need to love his little brother. Too many leaders currently "love" everyone in the world except their immediate neighbors, the deplorables.

It is easy to "love" someone far away or "love " when rewarded. Doing your day-to-day duty of caring for those who count on you is not about glory. It is needed. If you don't care for them, who will?