William Temple Foundation

Neighbour-Love and Nation-State: Can Ordo Amoris Offer a Framework for Just Immigration Policy?

‘We should love our family first, then our neighbours, then love our community, then our country, and only then consider the interests of the rest of the world.’ These, the words of J.D. Vance, the Catholic Vice President of the United States, sparked controversy within the Church. Writing to the U.S. Bishops in February 2025, Pope Francis then framed the ‘true ordo amoris as… love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception.’ We find here the central question: is the right ordering of loves, in accordance with God’s good design, exclusive or inclusive? Does a hierarchy of loves necessitate love contracted by category, or is love that images the divine necessarily universal?

We must begin, as so many good things do, with Augustine. The early Church Father differentiated between caritas (divine love) and cupiditas (disordered love), contending that the latter emerges when humans love other things above God (De Doctrina Christiana, I.27-29). Thomas Aquinas systematised this, framing right ordo amoris as: objects of love ordered in accordance with their proximity to God as they share in His goodness; informing the order of charity which places God, then ourselves, neighbours, and enemies in that order; a cosmic, moral order that structures creation to reflect God’s wisdom. Aquinas develops Augustine’s abstract ontological hierarchy of goods – originally a personal and spiritual orientation – into a systematic principle of virtue. Human loves are thereby ordered according to their participation in the divine good, that it might inform caritas (here, charity). The ordo amoris has been repackaged many times since. C.S. Lewis, in The Abolition of Man, reframes it as a pedagogical and cultural, not theological, principle: he contends that we must rightly train our affections that we may ‘feel pleasure, liking, disgust, and hatred at those things which really are’.

But if love must be rightly ordered, what do we mean by ‘love’? Without labouring the subject, human love should be here understood as a participation in God’s own love that issues in acts of mercy; it is more an affection or adoration for an object but extends into the willing of the true good of others (De Doctrina Christiana, 1.27-29; Summa Theologica II-II, q.23-26).

This offers one of the best accounts for ordo amoris. Whilst we can will good to all, we cannot do good to all; our finitude necessitates a theology of caritas, or love-based action. Yet this also brings us to a crucial question. Augustine teaches that our love for neighbour flows from our love for God; we love ‘for the sake of’ God because He enables, exemplifies, and sustains that love (De Doctrina Christiana, I). But how can our love image God’s when His infinite nature allows Him to love all people equally as His image-bearing creations (Genesis 1:27; Galatians 3:28)? We simply were not created with such capacity.

It will not be a surprise that we must turn to the example of Jesus. Christ’s loves were perfectly aligned with the Father’s will (John 6:38), and yet this divine love was manifest within human limitations. Whilst incarnate Jesus loved all, His caritas was only directed towards a few, determined seemingly through proximity and encounter. However, what we do not find in Jesus is a Thomistic taxonomy of the rightful ordering of action.

This is exemplified in Jesus’ telling of the Good Samaritan parable (Luke 10:25-37). In responding to the question of who constitutes a neighbour, His reply dismantles the idea that neighbourliness is bounded by creed or kinship. Rather, we find a caritas of proximity that disrupts worldly hierarchies of belonging. Ordo amoris here appears dynamic and relational, rather than fixed in the stasis of predetermined identity. Traditional boundaries of animosity do not diminish neighbourly responsibility; in fact, the command to love your enemy (Matthew 5:44) extends that responsibility precisely into the dynamics of hostility. Such love reorders the affections not by convenience or similarity, but by participation in divine patterns of disruptive mercy. This is a pattern that Aquinas later echoes when he exhorts us to help those ‘who have greater want… rather than to one who is more closely united to us’ (Summa Theologica II-II q.31, 9).

When Vance argues that rightly ordered love requires privileging national loyalty over global responsibility, he echoes Aquinas only in part. Aquinas’ ordo amoris orders our loves but does not restrict them. Two other Thomistic principles point to a better reading. The universal destination of goods determines that created goods are designed for the good of all; the bonum commune (common good) as transcendent asserts that the good of any nation finds its true end in service to the universal good of humanity (Summa Theologica I-II, q.90, a.2; q.109, a.3). Through this lens, nation is not ultimate, and love, even in a domestic context, is not exclusive. As Revd. David Cassidy frames it, ‘America First can never mean America Alone’.

If God has created humans to be finite and material, it would indeed suggest that proximity is a necessary – and right – constitutive factor of ordo amoris. It is less apparent that this ordering should be exhaustive, rather than a non-exclusive prioritisation. Ordo amoris does not remove universal obligations, and nor does it align with social identifiers.

Moreover, our theology of proximity must be recalibrated in accordance with our times. While for Aquinas, proximity was localised, the globalised and increasingly technological world order necessitates a reconfiguring of our understanding of proximity. As the reach of our consumption, communication, and ecological impact broadens, so does our moral proximity to those we may never meet. Ordo amoris may be rightly interpreted as relating to proximity, but proximity can no longer be interpreted in spatial or tribal terms.

If the proximate now includes those bound to us through globalised systems, and if a biblical reading of ordered affections subverts identity-markers, then the ordo amoris cannot be credibly invoked to defend exclusionary immigration policies. Rather, it demands that our moral and political framework expands in proportion to our interdependence.

Pope Leo’s recent call for ‘deep reflection’ on U.S. treatment of migrants perhaps affords Vance the opportunity to re-open his Bible. Luke 10 might be just the place to start.

Victoria Paynter is a Parliamentary Assistant in the House of Lords and the Communications Officer for the William Temple Foundation.

Interested in exploring these questions in more depth? Our part-time, accredited online course Hospitality, Vulnerability and Resilience: An Introduction to Working with Refugees and People with Lived Experience (19 January–6 February 2026) brings together practitioners, faith communities, and people with lived experience to develop more just and resilient approaches to hospitality.
Learn more and book your place.

Launching in January 2026: ‘Hospitality, Vulnerability and Resilience’ – An Introductory Online Course on Working with Refugees

19 January – 6 February 2026

An Introduction to Working with Refugees and People with Lived Experience

Against the backdrop of divisive narratives, restrictive asylum policies and barriers to solidarity, the wellbeing of refugees and sanctuary seekers, their rights and their pathways to integration are increasingly under threat.

If you are wondering what can we do as individuals and communities – faith and secular organisations, local groups and refugee charities, researchers and people with lived experience – to support sanctuary seekers and volunteers in these difficult times, then this is the course for you.

This is an invitation to join a collaborative space to learn and share ideas about becoming better hosts, advocates and allies.

• How do we understand our own motivations and counteract hostility and fear with hospitality and social justice?
• How do we build connections with people with lived experience and co-develop inclusive campaigns, networks and initiatives?

Our 3-week online course will give you space and support to explore religious and secular stories, practices and campaigns about hospitality, collaboration and resilience. You will examine your own approaches and hear about inspiring projects to develop new partnerships.

For more information about the programme and to book your place, please click here.  

Sign up and join a community to shape a more hopeful, inclusive society in the midst of uncertainty and division.

Welcome to Bishop Sarah as Archbishop of Canterbury and our book entitled ‘Towards the Conversion of the Church of England by the Rest of England’

The William Temple Foundation welcomes the appointment of Rt Revd and Rt Hon Bishop Sarah Mullally DBE as the new and 106^th Archbishop of Canterbury, and the first woman to hold this historic role.

Her appointment comes at a crucial time in the life of both the Church of England and the English nation. The time is pressing to rediscover and reimagine what a viable English identity or identities look like in the current context of populism and far right rhetoric.

This rhetoric is narrowing the scope and appeal of the English flag and the Union Jack as symbols of white supremacy and an opposition to otherness and diversity on which England’s economy and culture have successfully been built since the Second World War and beyond.

Some are wondering how the flag of St George and the Union Jack can be repurposed to symbolise a more inclusive society, at ease with itself and providing a safe, nurturing and creative space of all cultures and identities that find themselves contributing to the health and wellbeing of England at this time.

 Some of these themes are contained in a new publication just launched by the Foundation entitled Towards the Conversion of the Church of England by the Rest of England. Details of its findings and who contributed to it can be found here. These ideas will be further explored at our Book Launch, where Professor Linda Woodhead and Professor John Denham will respond to the text. This will take place for free online, at 7-8.15pm on 28 October 2025.

Professor Chris Baker, Director of Research for the Foundation says. ‘In welcoming Bishop Sarah to her new role we are thrilled to recognise the deeply symbolic nature of this appointment. We offer our prayers and good wishes to her as she seeks to address the many challenges but also opportunities the current moment brings to reset the national debate about the sort of society we wish to be. Her predecessor Archbishop William Temple did precisely that in his book Christianity and Social order (1942) at a similar time of great urgency, and we hope that some of his optimistic spirit is with her now as she prepares for her great office.’

For further details:

Professor Christopher Baker, Director of Research, 07779 000021

A statement in response to the attack at the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation Synagogue, Manchester

I am writing on behalf of the William Temple Foundation, to condemn in the strongest possible terms the events that have taken place at the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation Synagogue today, 2nd October, 2025.

There is absolutely no place for violent extremism of any kind in British Society in 2025. We stand with our Jewish brothers and sisters at this time, and pray for the community and all that have been affected by this.

In 1941 William Temple, established the Council of Christians and Jews as a practical step to form relationships and solidarity in response to the horrors of World War II. It is in that spirit that we stand now.

Over the last two years we have explored a new concept and campaign around Radical Hope which seeks to respond clearly and collaboratively to the struggles shaping public life today. This attack is another example of the struggles we are mobilising to overcome. We will continue with our work in earnest.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families, as they respond to this horror and move forward in hope.

Dr. Matthew Barber Rowell, Northern Temple Network Lead, William Temple Foundation. 2nd October 2025.

Victoria Paynter welcomed as new Communications Officer

It is with great pleasure that the William Temple Foundation announces the appointment of Victoria Paynter as its new Communications Officer.

Victoria will be joining the team in a freelance capacity and will strive to amplify the great work of the Foundation. In her role, she will strengthen the Foundation’s public profile across a variety of platforms and promote the valuable contributions of its fellows and partners.

A recent Politics graduate of the University of Edinburgh, Victoria brings her experience in communications through her voluntary work with the Centre for the Study of Bible and Violence and Just Love Edinburgh. She has a strong interest in the socio-political role of the Church and the valuable contributions of faith communities to the public square. With good synchronicity to her new role with the Foundation, Victoria will also shortly commence work for a Christian peer in the House of Lords as a graduate on the CARE Leadership Programme.

Speaking about her appointment, Victoria says, ‘The William Temple Foundation has a rich history of developing and promoting faith contributions to public life. I am delighted to have the opportunity to build on that legacy by helping to platform the Foundation’s scholarship and insights, and foster greater dialogue between its audience and contributors.’

Professor Chris Baker, Director of Research for the Foundation responds, ‘We are thrilled that Victoria is joining the Foundation in this important role. She will bring a lot of fresh thinking and approach as to how the Foundation continues to position itself in a rapidly changing political and belief landscape and communicates its core message – especially to the leaders and opinion formers of the future.’