St. Ambrose on the Love for the Family and the Criminal
Though I'm a bit late to the party, there is one theological topic which has been in the news lately: the ordo amoris. For those who may not know what I'm talking about, recently J.D. Vance talked about how Americans ought to first love those that are closest to them, namely Americans as opposed to those of other countries. In this sense, our love is hierarchical, or "ordered." He bases this on an ancient Christian principle called, in Latin, the ordo amoris, the "order of love," as he said himself in a tweet on the topic. This concept is certainly biblical, as is seen in Galatians 6:10, but it's also patristic. Normally this thought is traced to Augustine and filtered through Aquinas, but as I was listening to St. Ambrose's work On the Duties of the Clergy, it was right there, plain as day! There's a great deal of other topics like unrighteous vows and even head covering which I may address at another time, but for now, I think it behooves me to stay topical. What's more, he has a great deal of nuance in his thoughts on the topic which I think would be edifying for us to share in relation to another recent theological controversy. Without further ado, let's look at St. Ambrose!
He opens with a very basic but fascinating description of the topic alongside a theme that characterizes the whole work:
"But the piety of justice is first directed towards God; secondly, towards one's country; next, towards parents; lastly, towards all. This, too, is in accordance with the guidance of nature. From the beginning of life, when understanding first begins to be infused into us, we lovelife as the gift of God, we love our country and our parents; lastly, our companions, with whom we like to associate. Hence arises true love, which prefers others to self, and seeks not its own, wherein lies the pre-eminence of justice." On the Duties of the Clergy 1.27.127
There's a common kid's song that works based off the mnemonic JOY: "J is for Jesus, O is for Other, and Y-y-y-y-y is for You, You, You-ou-ou-ou!" This really is a Sunday School level ordo amoris, meant to convey that Christ is the first that one ought to love, the neighbor second, and yourself last. Ambrose confesses the same here, with added the nuance in the "others" camp that first comes one's country and then one's parents. This is a strange point, as love for one's country doesn't have a commandment to itself like loving one's parents. This is cleared up both by the immediate and farther removed context, in which Ambrose gives two reasons for his ordering: natural law and utility.
In the former case, he points out that the basic human need is "to preserve their own safety, to guard against what is harmful, [and] to strive for what is advantageous,"which the natural man does by means of "food and converts" (1.27.128). In other words, man loves his nation naturally because it protects him from evil and encourages him to flourish. On the other hand, he is bound to love his family due to the nature of things to seek out and love things like themselves, be they humans or horses. While I am sympathetic to the thesis, I think his proof falls flat, as the natural man generally does not have his needs met by the state, or at least not recognizably so, but rather by his parents, who provide for his physical and spiritual needs.
The second point in his argument comes much later into book 3 and sounds something like a proto-utilitarian perspective, which is that one ought always to act in such a way that the useful for the "general good" (3.4.25), and rather than serving himself, "he must strive in everything to do, not what is useful for himself, but what is useful for many" (3.3.15). In other words, one should work not for his own pleasure but that the most people should be benefitted by it. This supports his previous statement that the state should be loved before one's parents because one ought to strive for the good of more people. In addition, this principle of love of neighbor over oneself is the core of his views on the ordo. He spends little time developing it except to further emphasize the fact that one ought to put oneself farther down in the hierarchy.
We rightly tend to look at this order in a bit more of a fluid fashion, in which case our love for these various subjects shift depending on circumstances even while generally erring on the side of the ordo. Ambrose, however, is much stricter in his position here, and he heavily emphasizes the self-sacrificial nature of one's love in book 3 of this text. He goes so far as to say "The upright man must never think of depriving another of anything, nor must he ever wish to increase his own advantage to the disadvantage of another" (3.2.13), and he gets this from St. Paul's words to the Corinthians, "Let no one seek his own good but the good of his neighbor" (1 Cor 10:23). For Ambrose, as for St. Paul, the Christian ought not seek his own advantage, honor, or praise, but rather that of his neighbor. This is also typified by Christ Himself:
"For Christ our Lord, though He was in the form of God, emptied Himself so as to take on Himself the form of man, which He wished to enrich with the virtue of His works. Will you, then, spoil him whom Christ has put on? Will you strip him whom Christ has clothed? For this is what you are doing when thou dost attempt to increase your own advantage at another's loss." On the Duties of the Clergy 3.3.15
I would be remiss not to point out the soteriological implications of this statement. Notice that Christ wishes to give the human nature "the virtue of His works." You know what that sounds like? Imputed righteousness! Here, Ambrose is describing our salvation as Christ giving us the fruits of His own virtue, it's beautiful stuff.
With all of that said, I think it's time we address a more difficult example here. You may remember the controversy around the Large Catechism with Annotations and Contemporary Applications from 2022, in which many took issue with the writers and contents therein, a topic I have waded into myself on occasion. One of the more controversial portions came from Joel Biermann's essay on self-defense, in which he argued that the government giving the right to a certain course of action does not itself make it morally justified. Specifically, the right to bear arms does not give the the Christian the right to any act of violence. Finally, he ups the ante and in his last sentence says as follows: "Lethal force...is never exercised for the sake of self, but always and only for the sake of the neighbor." I still maintain that, regardless of whether it is right or wrong, this was an unwise addition and poor placement of it. That said, Ambrose actually addresses this exact topic!
In his discussion of sacrifice for the neighbor, he gives an example with a seemingly obvious conclusion. Suppose you and another man, let's call him Johnny, were both fleeing a sinking ship and you were stuck treading water meanwhile Johnny managed to grab the only piece of debris that either of you could find, but it was so small that only one person could float on it. Now also suppose that Johnny is a worthless person for one reason or another, either morally bankrupt or an imbecile or something else. Should you, then, push him off the debris and let him drown to save yourself? According to Ambrose, the answer is no, as the Christian ought not "save his own life by the death of another." This is effectively a 4th-century trolley problem! However, in defense of this position, he actually says something even more controversial about self-defense:
"...just as when he meets with an armed robber he cannot return his blows, lest in defending his life he should stain his love toward his neighbour. The verdict on this is plain and clear in the books of the Gospel. "Put up your sword, for every one that takes the sword shall perish with the sword." What robber is more hateful than the persecutor who came to kill Christ? But Christ would not be defended from the wounds of the persecutor, for He willed to heal all by His wounds." (3.4.27)
Thus, Ambrose would side with Dr. Biermann, arguing that the Christian cannot meet the armed robber with lethal force, even basing this in the words of Christ. His reasoning? This would stain one's love for the neighbor. What's more, in doing so, the man even images Christ by refraining from violence against his persecutors but leaving it for the day of judgement. This also ties into what he said before, which is that the Christian still has an obligation to love the criminal as part of the ordo and even as a place above himself, and to actually live that out, one must not sacrifice them for his own sake.
With that said, he does seemingly allow for the defense against criminals in book 1, while he meditates on virtue in general:
For courage, which in war preserves one's country from the barbarians, or at home defends the weak, or comrades from robbers, is full of justice; and to know on what plan to defend and to give help, how to make use of opportunities of time and place, is the part of prudence and moderation, and temperance itself cannot observe due measure without prudence.
Here we see that Ambrose does, in fact, allow for violence in some context. For soldiers, they can remain Christian and, through the virtue of courage, defend their nation from those who seek its destruction. At home, citizens are to pursue social justice by defending the weak courageously. Interestingly, he does here allow one to even defend one's neighbors from robbers. While this initially comes off as contradictory, this is still entirely commensurate with Biermann's own position. In the case of the courageous citizen, he is not defending himself by blows, but he is defending his neighbor. In the context of the ordo, this would be because his neighbor is to be loved over the one who seeks his destruction, and in that way, he is putting the closer neighbor's love against the farther.
Comments