Bergoglio sends letter to U.S. bishops…
Disordered Charity:
‘Pope’ Francis, Deportations, and the Ordo Amoris
A few years back, the American author and journalist George Neumayr (1972-2023) published a book about Jorge Bergoglio (‘Pope Francis’) entitled The Political Pope (2017).
That the adjective fits, Francis demonstrated today by sending a missive to the ‘Catholic bishops’ of the United States regarding the current enforcement of federal immigration laws by the Trump administration. The Vatican released the text today:
The letter contains a total of ten numbered paragraphs, in which the ‘Pope’ criticizes the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws, specifically mass deportations:
I have followed closely the major crisis that is taking place in the United States with the initiation of a program of mass deportations. The rightly formed conscience cannot fail to make a critical judgment and express its disagreement with any measure that tacitly or explicitly identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality. At the same time, one must recognize the right of a nation to defend itself and keep communities safe from those who have committed violent or serious crimes while in the country or prior to arrival. That said, the act of deporting people who in many cases have left their own land for reasons of extreme poverty, insecurity, exploitation, persecution or serious deterioration of the environment, damages the dignity of many men and women, and of entire families, and places them in a state of particular vulnerability and defenselessness.
(Antipope Francis, Letter to the Bishops of the United States of America, n. 4; underlining added.)
News coverage of the ‘papal’ letter came swiftly (for example: Vatican News | Catholic World Report | Associated Press | National Catholic Reporter | Life Site).
Furthermore, Vatican News was quick to publish ‘Cardinal’ Blase Cupich’s praise of the Bergoglian move, while the progressive Where Peter Is happily reported that Francis had affirmed the “infinite dignity of migrants”.
The USCCB — the so-called “United States Conference of Catholic Bishops” — posted on Twitter/X: “We are grateful for the support, moral encouragement, and prayers of the Holy Father, to the Bishops in affirmation of their work upholding the God-given dignity of the human person.”
Certainly, any true Pope, any genuine Vicar of Christ, has the right to speak on political matters, insofar as these pertain to Faith and morals (see Fr. John Cronin on the binding force of papal teaching). The problem with Francis is, first of all, that he is not a true Pope; and secondly, that his political interventions tend to be selective and one-sided, and people are noticing.
For his part, the controversial ‘Abp.’ Carlo Maria Viganò denounced the missive of the fake pope in no uncertain terms on Twitter/X, accusing him of a glaring double standard meant to protect the financial interests of his institution and the advancement of the globalist-progressivist agenda. Viganò also offered his own application of the Parable of the Good Samaritan, as follows:
In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the man who is robbed by bandits and left for dead could today be an American robbed by an illegal immigrant, or a veteran beaten by a gang of teenagers. Bergoglio does not stop to help him, because he is too busy obeying his masters. The one who stops to treat him, who takes him to the inn at his own expense (and not with taxpayer money), is not a Jesuit NGO or a progressive charity funded by USAID, but rather the Samaritan whom the new doctors of the Law consider a heretic, and who today wears a red hat with the writing MAGA.
(Source)
Please note we are not making his words our own; we are merely reporting on what Viganò is saying in public.
In what appears to be a response to recent remarks by U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, who is a convert to the Novus Ordo religion, Francis picks up the phraseordo amoris (“order of love”, “order of charity”) Vance had used and claims to correct it:
Christians know very well that it is only by affirming the infinite [sic] dignity of all that our own identity as persons and as communities reaches its maturity. Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups. In other words: the human person is not a mere individual, relatively expansive, with some philanthropic feelings! The human person is a subject with dignity who, through the constitutive relationship with all, especially with the poorest, can gradually mature in his identity and vocation. The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the “Good Samaritan” (cf. Lk 10:25-37), that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception. [Footnote: Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli tutti, 3 October 2020.]
(Antipope Francis, Letter to the Bishops of the United States of America, n. 6; underlining added.)
Oh, what a word salad! It is anyone’s guess what Francis means by “mature identity” that is supposedly based on a “constitutive relationship with all”. It sounds like he needed to smooth over the fact that he has no theological basis on which to claim that we must love all people equally. Although he did not state this outright, it is implied in his criticism.
Bergoglio is being intentionally vague and ambiguous here since he needs some plausible deniability, else his apologists will have no easy way of defending him. Notice how he does admit, verbally, that there is an ordo amoris, yet he refuses to spell out what it is, preferring to leave the matter obscure.
Rather than plainly stating what the correct order of charity is, he describes it as something that is (a) “discovered” if we (b) “meditate” (c) “constantly” (d) “on the parable of the ‘Good Samaritan'”. So why didn’t he spell it out? Instead he refers people, by means of a footnote, to his encyclical letter Fratelli Tutti — not to a particular passage in it but to the whole thing. It’s too bad the encyclical doesn’t mention the order of charity.
To ensure we get a correct and truly Catholic understanding of the order of charity, we only need to turn to pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic moral theology. Here is how the Dominican Fr. Dominic Prümmer (1866-1931) explained it:
224. There is an order to be observed in the practice of charity: 1. between the persons loved; 2. between the goods which are loved in them.
1. In our love of persons the order to be observed is the following:
a) We are bound to love God above all else, then ourselves, and our neighbour in the third place.
That God must be loved above all else is evident from the fact that our love of Him must reveal the highest appreciation. That a man must love himself more than his neighbour follows from Christ’s precept commanding us to love our neighbour as ourselves. Therefore true love of self is the standard and measure of the love of our neighbour.
b) We are not bound to love our neighbours equally but in proportion to their proximity to God and to ourselves.
Charity derives from two sources — God and ourselves. The nearer anything is to either of these principles, so much the greater must be our love of it. Thus those who are better and more perfect in the sight of God are deserving of greater love than those who are less perfect, since they are more like to God. This refers to our reverence for and appreciation of such persons, not necessarily to our feelings towards them. Thus a son must have greater regard for a saintly person than for his own wicked father, but it is not necessary that he possess greater feelings of love for that person. In our charity towards our relatives and friends the order to be observed — in normal circumstances — is the following: wife (or husband), children, parents, brothers and sisters, other relatives, friends and benefactors. This order may be changed for a sufficient reason.
2. Between the objects loved the following order exists: a) one’s own spiritual welfare; b) the spiritual welfare of our neighbour; c) one’s own bodily welfare; d) bodily welfare of the neighbour; e) external goods.
FIRST RULE. In another’s extreme spiritual necessity we are obliged to help him even is a at grave risk to our own bodily life, provided that there reasonable hope of saving him and no serious public harm results. Our neighbour’s everlasting life is a far more excellent good than the life of our own body.
SECOND RULE. Except when another is in extreme spiritual necessity there is no strict obligation of helping him at the risk of serious bodily harm.
This follows from the fact that we are not obliged to safeguard even our own life where there is risk of serious harm.
THIRD RULE. In another’s grave need (whether spiritual or temporal) we must help him if we can do so without serious inconvenience, unless justice, piety, or our office make greater claims on us.
FOURTH RULE. In common or slight necessity we must be prepared to suffer some slight inconvenience in helping our neighbour.
(Rev. Dominic M. Prümmer, O.P., Handbook of Moral Theology [Cork: The Mercier Press, Limited, 1956], trans. by Fr. Gerald W. Shelton, S.T.L., n. 224; italics given; underlining added. This book has been republished by Benedictus Books [#CommissionLink].)
A much more comprehensive treatment of the subject of the ordo amoris can be found in the mammoth Moral Theology (1958) by the Dominican Fathers John McHugh and Charles Callan, available online for free here. The full treatment can be found in nn. 1158-1182. Below we will quote only the most relevant parts:
1158. The Order of Charity.—Charity not only requires that we love God, ourselves, and our neighbors, but it also obliges us to love these objects according to a certain order, some being preferred to others.
(a) God must be loved above all, more than self (Matt, xvi. 24), more than father and mother (Matt., x. 37; Luke, xiv. 26), for He is the common good of all, and the source of all good.
(b) Other things being equal, one should love self more than one’s neighbor, for the love of self is the model for the love of neighbor (Matt., xxii. 39), and nature itself inclines to this in accordance with the saying: “Charity begins at home.”
(c) Among neighbors those should be loved more who have more of a claim on account of their greater nearness to God or to ourselves.
…
1171. The order of charity between different neighbors is as follows: (a) as to good in general (e.g., the attainment of salvation), we should love all neighbors alike, for we should desire salvation for all; (b) as to good in particular (e.g., the degree of beatitude), we should love some more than others. Thus, we should desire a higher degree of glory for the Blessed Virgin than for the Saints.
1172. The reasons for loving one neighbor more than another can be reduced to two. (a) One neighbor may be nearer to God than another, and hence more deserving of love—for example, a saintly acquaintance may be nearer to God than a sinful relative. (b) One neighbor may be nearer to ourselves on account of relationship by blood or marriage, friendship, civil or professional ties, etc. Thus, a cousin is nearer by nature to his cousin than another person who is not a relative.
1173. The order of charity as between those nearer to God and those nearer to self is as follows:
(a) Objectively, we should esteem more those who are better, and desire for them that higher degree of God’s favor which belongs to their merits. But we may desire for those nearer to ourselves that they will finally surpass in holiness those now better than they are, and thus attain to a greater beatitude. Moreover, while we prefer in one respect (i.e., that of holiness) a saintly person, who is a stranger, we prefer in many respects (e.g., on account of relationship, friendship, gratitude) another who is less holy.
(b) Subjectively, the love for those nearer to self is greater, that is, more intense, more vividly felt. The preferences for those nearer to self, therefore, far from being wrong or the expression of mere natural love, are expressions of charity itself. For it is God’s will that more love should be shown to those who are nearer to us: “If any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (I Tim., v. 8). Hence, charity itself inclines one to have more love for one’s own, and it supernaturalizes filial piety, patriotism, and friendship.
1174. The order to be followed in the manifestation of charity will correspond with the order of charity itself. (a) To those to whom greater objective love is due, on account of their holiness, more respect due to their excellence should be shown. (b) To those to whom greater return of love is due on account of the benefits they have shown (as parents, friends, etc.), more assistance should be given spiritually and temporally. That is, if one had to choose between helping either a relative or a stranger who was more virtuous, one would have to decide in favor of the relative. (c) To those to whom greater subjective love is due, more signs of affection (such as visits) should be given.
1175. Exceptions to the above are the following cases, in which the good of the better person should be preferred:
(a) if the common good requires such a preference. Thus, public interest demands that in conferring positions, making appointments, or voting for candidates, one should not be guided by family affections or private friendships, but only by the common welfare; and one should decide in favor of the better man;
(b) if the person nearer to self has forfeited his claims to preference. Thus, a son who has treated his father with contempt and is a wastrel, may be deprived of his share of the family goods in favor of strangers who are self-sacrificing and who promote some holy cause.
1176. The order of charity between various kinds of natural relationships is as follows: (a) the relationship that arises from consanguinity is prior and more stable, since it arises from nature itself and cannot be removed; (b) the relationship of friendship, since it arises from one’s own choice, may be more congenial and may be preferred even to kinship, when there is question of society and companionship (Prov., xviii. 24).
1177. In practice, other things being equal, one should manifest more love to a relative in those things that belong to the relationship.
(a) To those who are related by blood, corporal or temporal assistance is more due. If one has to choose between helping one’s indigent parents or an indigent friend, one should rather help one’s parents.
(b) To those who are spiritually related (e.g., pastor and parishioner, director and penitent, god-parent and god-child), more spiritual assistance in instruction, advice and prayer is due. Thus, a pastor is supposed to be more solicitous about instructing his congregation than his relatives who belong to another congregation.
(c) To those who are related by some special tie, political, military, religious, etc., more is due in things political, military, religious, etc., than to others. Thus, a soldier owes obedience to his officer, and not to his father, in matters that pertain to army life; a priest owes deference to an ecclesiastical superior in clerical matters, not to his parents.
(Rev. John A. McHugh and Rev. Charles J. Callan, Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities [New York, NY: Joseph F. Wagner, Inc., 1958]; nn. 1158,1171-1177; underlining added.)
This puts things in perspective. Yes, there is an order of charity; although we are commanded to love all people, we need not, indeed cannot, love them all equally. As St. Paul wrote to the Galatians: “Therefore, whilst we have time, let us work good to all men, but especially to those who are of the household of the faith.”
This is in accord with common sense. We are limited in how many and what kind of charitable deeds we can perform, and so we cannot help everybody. That is where the order of charity comes in: We have a greater obligation to help some rather than others, and it is to them we must give priority.
In an article published today, the Novus Ordo Dominican Rev. Peter Totleben gives a good example to illustrate this:
Although we must be willing to do good for every person, this is not actually possible, because we are finite people with finite resources. How do we choose to whom we should do good when we need to make this choice? We follow the ordo amoris. There is an order of priority by which we should choose to do the good.
The basic idea is obvious. If you are sitting in the middle seat of an airplane, with your wife on your left and a stranger on your right, when the air masks come down, you put your mask on first, then you help your wife with her mask, and finally you help the stranger with his. You help everyone whom you can help, but in a certain order. In the order of charity, God comes first, then our spiritual welfare, then our neighbor’s spiritual welfare, then our bodily welfare, then our neighbor’s bodily welfare. Among our neighbors, we prioritize our family, then our friends, then our benefactors, colleagues, other members of our community, our country, and finally the rest of the world. If it is a question of giving a good that is proper to a particular relationship, then we ought to prioritize giving that good to those with whom we share that relationship.
(Rev. Peter Totleben, O.P., “Vice President Vance, the Good Samaritan, and the ‘order of love’”, Catholic World Report, Feb. 11, 2025; underlining added.)
Totleben then points out an important caveat:
The principle of the ordo amoris, however, is a counsel of prudence; it is not an absolute moral maxim; it presupposes that all other things are equal. But if all other things are not equal, our evaluation of whom to prioritize may change. A greater need in a more distantly related neighbor, which I can alleviate here and now, should often be given preference over a lesser need in a more closely related neighbor.
(underlining added)
This too agrees with common sense. Although one’s spouse is per se prior in the order of charity than a neighbor’s child, in a particular circumstance (per accidens) the child may take priority: Obviously it is more important to help one’s neighbor’s infant son with an acute breathing problem (assuming nobody else is around to assist) than to help one’s wife with the grocery bags. Thus Fr. Prümmer notes, as quoted earlier: “This order may be changed for a sufficient reason.”
Exactly what the order of charity should be in a given scenario can be difficult to ascertain, but that is irrelevant to the point we’re making, namely, that there is an order to be followed. Francis appears to deny that in his letter to U.S. bishops, pointing instead, vaguely, to the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
Some will point out that Christ in this parable teaches that, ultimately, everyone is our neighbor, not just some people. That much is true, and Fr. Cornelius à Lapide affirms as much in his Commentary on the passage. However, it is beside the point. Yes, everyone is our neighbor, and we are commanded to love everybody. However, it does not follow from this that everyone is to be loved equally (which is impossible), nor that there is no order or hierarchy according to which we ought to prioritize some over others in the practice of charity.
In another place in his letter, as quoted above, Francis writes: “The rightly formed conscience cannot fail to make a critical judgment and express its disagreement with any measure that tacitly or explicitly identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality.” Alas, he does not explain why this should be so.
If someone wishes to enter another country, he must go to that country’s port of entry and ask for admittance. If instead he forces his entry by crossing the border illegally, that is, in violation of the country’s laws, he thereby commits a criminal act (assuming that illegally crossing the border is considered a crime by that nation). Thus it is not clear on what grounds Bergoglio can say that Catholics must disagree “with any measure that tacitly or explicitly identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality.”
In his 2017 exposé of that “political Pope”, George Neumayr wrote that Francis has been a cheerleader for illegal immigration and open borders:
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s,” Jesus Christ told his disciples. Traditionally, the Church has interpreted this to mean that Catholics are duty-bound to obey the state’s just laws, including its immigration laws. To the cheers of the left, Pope Francis has broken with this tradition, openly encouraging defiance of national borders. His pontificate has been a bewildering spectacle of stunts and speeches designed to advance the cause of open borders and illegal immigration.
(George Neumayr, The Political Pope: How Pope Francis is Delighting the Liberal Left and Abandoning Conservatives [New York, NY: Center Street, 2017], p. 121)
When it comes to his own national borders, however, Francis is a bit less generous. Vatican City may be the world’s smallest country, but it is nevertheless s a city-state with borders and laws. About two-thirds of the country are surrounded by a very thick wall, and even though one can simply walk into St. Peter’s Square, this does not mean one can walk about anywhere on Vatican property:
To gain access to St. Peter’s Basilica as well as the Vatican Museums — which includes the Sistine Chapel — requires waiting in a long security line and going through a metal detector.
Access to other parts of the Vatican — including the gardens, the Vatican Bank, and Casa Santa Marta, where Pope Francis lives — is a bit more difficult. It requires having the proper credentials, such as a press pass or an academic affiliation, and a short conversation with a member of the Swiss Guard, which protects most entrances.
Unlike the walls, the Guard are not anachronisms. They carry guns, and their protection is supplemented with assistance from Italian police. But they are a throwback to a time when the pope really needed protection, and it stopped his enemies from saying, “You and what army?” when facing a challenge from the Holy See.
(Michael O’Loughlin, “No, Internet, the Vatican is not a walled city”, Crux, Feb. 19, 2016)
If Francis wanted to abolish his own security service, he could certainly do so. Ironically, the Vatican has just recently increased the penalties for — get this! — illegal entry into its territory:
The government of Vatican City has quietly raised the penalties imposed on people who enter Vatican territory illegally.
Anyone who enters Vatican territory illegally is subject to criminal prosecution, with penalties now reaching as high as €25,000 (about $25,000), and prison sentences up to four years. These penalties could be increased if the illegal entry involves violence.
Anyone convicted for entering the Vatican illegally will subsequently be barred from legal entry for up to 15 years.
Although St. Peter’s Square and the Vatican Museums are open to visitors, other entries to the Vatican’s walled territory are closely guarded, with only authorized visitors allowed.
(Catholic World News note on “Vatican cracks down on illegal entry into its territory”, Catholic News Agency, Jan. 15, 2025.)
Sounds like someone may need to meditate some more on the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
Image source: Shutterstock (Alessia Pierdomenico); cropped
License: paid
;
No Comments
Be the first to start a conversation