JD Vance and the Order of Love

VP JD Vance is under a lot of scrutiny over a claim that there is an "order of love" which tells us to love those closest to us first. Is he right?
Support the channel by visiting: brianholdswort...
Music written and generously provided by Paul Jernberg. Find out more about his work as a composer here: pauljernberg.com
Podcast Version: brianholdswort...

[@marypatty1061]

I love this quote from Mother Teresa, “If you want to change the world, go home and love your family”.

[@Pat.hibuleire]

@@marypatty1061 bro what you mean Does this prevent to to love jesus the catholic mexicano

[@GodsDumbLamb]

​@Pat.hibuleireThere are plenty of Mexican Catholics in Mexico to take care of themselves

[@Cjc-05]

Jesus nous dit que sa famille c'est le voisin le dealer le faible le demuni et que chaque être humain est un frère une sœur quelque soit sa race sa culture.... Ça n'a rien à voir avec l'idéologie de Trump

[@ronDCM]

@Pat.hibuleire No it does not exclude the Mexicans. But you have to look at sustainability and the finite nature of all things. it will be possible to provide for a certain number, but after the limit is reached and the resources are gone, no one will benefit, and everything is likely to descend into chaos. it is hard to share when there is nothing to share. That is why we have to control immigration, to keep the resources plentiful for everyone.

[@chommie5350]

Go home and love your family.... Don't you get it Pat?

[@peggsky1]

As the family goes, so goes the nation and so goes the whole world in which we live. John Paul II

[@JohnnyNada]

The guy who moved p doz around lol

[@littlerock5256]

JPII did the horrific Assisi event.

[@nemodor139]

​@@littlerock5256why horrific?

[@philiphumphrey1548]

CS Lewis makes the same point in The Screwtape Letters. He describes how it's much easier for "the patient" to love some vague concept of "humanity" than it is to love "the sharp tongued old lady the other side of the breakfast table".

[@MichelleM-pv5to]

Haha, yes!

[@gabriela6584]

The same point is made in The Brothers Karamazov. There must be something to it...

[@admiralbob7797]

But you're not called to a vague love. You're called to real actual action. Both you and Jesus agree that your vague love of humanity is useless. Where you disagree is on the value of the much more challenging actual Amor Caritatis.

[@eldermillennial8330]

Ive also been pondering critics of Vance bringing up “the Good Samaritan” in particular. Well, he was traveling alone. What IF he’d been traveling with his pregnant wife and a young child? Only one donkey? And him having to be on the alert with his weapon to fight to potentially the death to protect them from those same criminals? Would they all have risked their lives to make room for the poor man on the donkey? No. They’d have at most moved him to a more sheltered nook along the way, if they could find it, providing him with bandages, some spare clothes, a blanket and food, and promise him to send for help, but he would put his family first. Also, Christ implied that the men who passed him by earlier did so mainly because he was so out cold from the beating he’d taken that they couldn’t tell if he was dead or not and a pious Jew would not touch a corpse if he can help it. They could at least have poked him with a stick to check. The point is Similar men traveling later MIGHT be more willing to help a fellow Jew that they can see for sure is alive, as the blanket and supplies would indicate. So don’t do NOTHING for the suffering stranger but what you can do depends on who else depends on you.

[@admiralbob7797]

@@eldermillennial8330 I think some people are a little fuzzy on who the hero of that story is. Just to be clear, it is the Samaritan. A little "Catechism 101" for those not sure about this.

[@gwenewing6837]

When I was in Catholic grade school in the 1960's, I remember the nuns telling us to always take care of yourself, your families and homes first then when you have time and recources you can do for others. It's ridiculous to have a messy home, a neglected spouse and kids not doing well in school and going to volunteer for some charity!

[@elenaptrear]

Exactly!

[@hannahkirchner1656]

I knew a family whose children burned to death in a fire due to taking care of everybody else first. They were ministers, which is nice. But their house was a tremendous godawful wreck. So busy taking care of others that their own home was trashed. Took the batteries out of the smoke detector for toys over Christmas. A fire somehow sparked. Three kids gone. I remember making a vow to myself to make sure my own doorstep was swept before sweeping another.

[@whatsgoodisgold]

“The more I love humanity in general, the less I love man in particular” - Fyodor Dostoevsky

[@AliciatheCho]

Very well thought out and explained. Many people love the world but don’t even know their next-door neighbors’ names

[@Pat.hibuleire]

Jésus the mexicano naked and hungry at the border is not your brother in christ

[@elizaj4431]

If you can't have any care about your neighbor you don't really love the world. Its like watching garden videos and telling others what they're doing wrong while your own backyard is full of weeds. Its a form of escapism sometimes enabling you to procrastinate or not do the actual work coupled with virtue signaling to pump oneself up. Love has to start right inside oneself and be extended to those close around you in manifest ways. If everyone did that it would change the world but it can't be forced externally by things like social credit or government enforcement. It has to come authentically from inside and imposing it between people with no genuine connection will only result in another dystopia. You cant ask people to really take on caring for every person in the world but if everyone took care of their own sphere it would ripple throughout. You can only teach by example of yourself and sharing ideas.

[@AliciatheCho]

@@elizaj4431 Well said. I like the garden videos analogy. Social media has really exacerbated the issue. But also, we live in such an atomized individualistic culture. Also, we are now subjected to tragedies and concerns from all over the world. Plus our culture encourages constant relocation, so I think it’s diminishes people’s desire to get invested in others. Of course a lot of people just stay in their houses, exhausted from a commute and work. What do you think?

[@elizaj4431]

@AliciatheCho I also think its a bit like in the Bible as it says, "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?" I think too there's a downside to things like NGOs, charities, government assistance programs, etc. in that its far easier to be charitable with other people's money and tell others how to live while you draw a salary and get recognition and meaning/sense of purpose/validation from being a do gooder or champion of a cause. We've never had more charity, social programs, etc and yet the problems far from being solved seem rather worse and those championing causes they haven't solved just keep saying give us more. I agree with all your points. It's multi factoral for sure. I was blessed to grow up in a community that was already pretty old fashioned then. My mother moved back to the rural agricultural area where my grandparents had a small farm. My grandparents siblings almost all still lived in the community and a lot of their family. So we had aunts, uncles, cousins around us. We didn't all attend the same church but most did some church and Sundays there was a get together for Sunday dinner at my grandmother's. She was the matriarch of our family. There would be at least 12 around the table, often more, and the kids had a kids' table. After we'd play with our cousins. We would often get to help bake a pie or harvest something for dinner we had grown. The community had seasonal events like in winter the ice carnival on a lake where there would be ice fishing, snowmobiles pulling inner tubes, skating, etc... Holidays were huge comings together both with family and community. Life was centered around family and community in an organic way. Its not that there weren't problems. There were certainly bad marriages, alcoholics, so on. But I do remember people looked out for those around them. My grandmother and others had a ladies' aid society and made and raffled quilts and the money went to local families known to be in need. No one starved to death or had no roof but we werent responsible for the entire world just those around us. And I think the fallacy sometimes gets pushed that somehow traditional values or lifestyles somehow promoted or contributed to things like spouse or child abuse and other problems when these problems and many more exist in modern society stripped of traditional ties. My siblings and I went off to different universities. Now live spread out over the world. Many no longer participate in any religious community. One of my sisters has no kids and one of my brothers has never married. No big family dinners. We keep in touch with things like Skype but it's not nearly the same. I honestly struggle to feel connection with my one nephew and niece I see a couple times a year. Where I live there are many recreational opportunities but it will be with people I don't know or barely and we all have different lives and limited time. My sister says preparing meals isnt worth it to her because no one cares so she has one of those food meal plans deliver. She says it's hard to get her son to sit and eat with them more than five minutes as he wants to get back to video games or being online with peers. So on. Its very different. And just my opinion not healthier or better in many ways for us. But I think the main thing is to try to extend grace to others as you encounter them in life. To hold off judging and prescribing too much because we aren't all knowing but focus on living yourself consistently with your values and caring well for things/people that fall in your own sphere of influence or life. Set an example with your own life. If a lot of people do this well, much would be genuinely improved, and it's hard enough work. Sorry to fire off such a rambling, unedited mess but it's hard to say how I see this without examples and my attention is divided with other stuff I should be doing. 😆

[@elizaj4431]

@AliciatheCho I also think its a bit like in the Bible as it says, "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?" I think too there's a downside to things like NGOs, charities, government assistance programs, etc. in that its far easier to be charitable with other people's money and tell others how to live while you draw a salary and get recognition and meaning/sense of purpose/validation from being a do gooder or champion of a cause. We've never had more charity, social programs, etc and yet the problems far from being solved seem rather worse and those championing causes they haven't solved just keep saying give us more. I agree with all your points. It's multi factoral for sure. I was blessed to grow up in a community that was already pretty old fashioned then. My mother moved back to the rural agricultural area where my grandparents had a small farm. My grandparents siblings almost all still lived in the community and a lot of their family. So we had aunts, uncles, cousins around us. We didn't all attend the same church but most did some church and Sundays there was a get together for Sunday dinner at my grandmother's. She was the matriarch of our family. There would be at least 12 around the table, often more, and the kids had a kids' table. After we'd play with our cousins. We would often get to help bake a pie or harvest something for dinner we had grown. The community had seasonal events like in winter the ice carnival on a lake where there would be ice fishing, snowmobiles pulling inner tubes, skating, etc... Holidays were huge comings together both with family and community. Life was centered around family and community in an organic way. Its not that there weren't problems. There were certainly bad marriages, alcoholics, so on. But I do remember people looked out for those around them. My grandmother and others had a ladies' aid society and made and raffled quilts and the money went to local families known to be in need. No one starved to death or had no roof but we werent responsible for the entire world just those around us. And I think the fallacy sometimes gets pushed that somehow traditional values or lifestyles somehow promoted or contributed to things like spouse or child abuse and other problems when these problems and many more exist in modern society stripped of traditional ties. My siblings and I went off to different universities. Now live spread out over the world. Many no longer participate in any religious community. One of my sisters has no kids and one of my brothers has never married. No big family dinners. We keep in touch with things like Skype but it's not nearly the same. I honestly struggle to feel connection with my one nephew and niece I see a couple times a year. Where I live there are many recreational opportunities but it will be with people I don't know or barely and we all have different lives and limited time. My sister says preparing meals isnt worth it to her because no one cares so she has one of those food meal plans deliver. She says it's hard to get her son to sit and eat with them more than five minutes as he wants to get back to video games or being online with peers. So on. Its very different. And just my opinion not healthier or better in many ways for us. But I think the main thing is to try to extend grace to others as you encounter them in life. To hold off judging and prescribing too much because we aren't all knowing but focus on living yourself consistently with your values and caring well for things/people that fall in your own sphere of influence or life. Set an example with your own life. If a lot of people do this well, much would be genuinely improved, and it's hard enough work. Sorry to fire off such a rambling, unedited mess but it's hard to say how I see this without examples and my attention is divided with other stuff I should be doing. 😆

[@hannahkirchner1656]

Thanks!☦

[@thomasjorge4734]

There is Always a Hierarchy in Everything, Everywhere!

[@RPlavo]

Have you read the parable of the rich man and Lazarus?

[@jjcm3135]

In Mother Teresa's Constitution for her order: she specifically stated that their (ie the sisters) first priority was to their sisters then the poor. JD Vance has asked a profound question for the West to answer ? I believe he is right.

[@velocirapture89]

It's about priorities. Christians seem to have somehow forgotten that Jesus said the first commandment was to love God with all your heart, might, mind and strength. Only then did he command them to love their neighbor as themselves. Most "christians" seem to have inverted the two.

[@ScreenNameLoretta]

J.D. Vance didn't mention loving God at all. Instead, Vance advocated loving one's **family first** -- and that's a weeping crying shame! 😢

[@christopherbracco1]

@@ScreenNameLorettain Vance’s defense, the topic of discussion was people. He was talking about family, community, then other nations, and so in that respect, family is first (out of the listed groups).

[@TheFullAutomaticShermanShow]

@@ScreenNameLoretta like you would know you probably hate your family

[@jennifer7648]

​@@christopherbracco1 Exactly what I was thinking. Also, it should really go without saying that you love God first.

[@ScreenNameLoretta]

@christopherbracco1 -- Okay.

[@tomlabooks3263]

3:48 This is such a GREAT definition of what I see in my friends on the left: their global love risks being an empty posture

[@avasophia1859]

Thanks!

[@wjtruax]

“It diminishes love to a meaningless sentiment that never gets practiced or applied to anything concretely.” Brilliant! I’m a cop. St. Paul’s admonition to Christians to be subject to governing authorities in Romans 13 implies very strongly that being on of those “governing authorities” is not contrary to the Christian life. Loving my fellow man doesn’t mean that I turn a blind eye to criminal activity. It does mean that, when I do interact with a suspect, I must treat him/her with all the dignity and respect I can while still performing my job and protecting my colleagues and the community. I can be gracious and kind to someone and still take them to jail. I can serve someone in a food kitchen or give a homeless person a jacket and a grocery gift card one day without questioning their criminal record. If I find out the next day they are wanted for a crime, it becomes my duty to arrest them. It’s emotionally hard to do, but it’s not complicated or a contradiction. In the same way, I think, Catholics can be genuinely gracious, kind, and loving toward illegal immigrants, and even genuinely sympathetic to their plight, but also still not resent the law being followed or enforced. We can also lobby for the laws to be changed as they are quite old and do not reflect, (IMHO) the realities of our day.

[@emmaaudu3461]

In all these we must remember that neither from the left nor the right can we achieve this, an unregenerate heart cannot love as God commands. Love the Lord God first and the other loves will order themselves. Maybe we Christians forget that love for God comes first before love for our neighbors because then we can rightly have a love for our neighbor that is according to God's will.

[@cjgodley1776]

It is absolutely a Catholic-Christian concept: the word for it is "subsidiarity".

[@emilyfs2012]

I needed this. So many great points and I mostly agree. But don't we have to be careful applying this to immigrants? These aren't theoretical people for me. They are people with names and faces with whom I do business. Why are they less my neighbor than a citizen? Sure it's a sin to immigrate illegally, but isn't charity needed? Aren't I a sinner too? Our country is so wealthy compared to much of the world. Reducing the refugees we accept seems so cruel. There are plenty of OT examples like Amos where the wealthy pursue more wealth at the expense of the poor and we see the Lord's wrath against this greed. You diagnose the problem on the left very well, but I think there is a problem on the right too.

[@dat8835]

How is this even controversial!? JD Vance is absolutely correct. I want my politicians to prioritize the country they represent

[@gabrielbelmont2447]

Through God, all things are possible.

[@lleweyllew3880]

“I love humanity! It’s just the people I can’t stand…”

[@turtlesongs2012]

Ha ha! I love Pink Floyd. But I can't stand their fans! etc. Anyway, it's laid out most powerfully in the Gospel of John. Charles Bukowski was a drunk John. Do not make friends with the WORLD. Don't follow its ways. Don't join a mob. Don't take oaths in the dark, do not conceal your light. Be horrified by humanity. But see the best and love the best in every INDIVIDUAL you encounter. Don't be naive. Be clever to the wiles of the devil. A follower of Christ is not easily manipulated. Sharpen discernment. Test everything to see if it comes from God or the devil. etc.

[@sebwoz8766]

Is that actually a quote from Charles Buk​owski?@@turtlesongs2012 If so, please send me the source. I am intrigued.

[@jimantonino4394]

😅😅😅

[@bekabell1]

I have a disordered desire, every time i see one of those leftist yard signs about 'everyone is welcome here' to walk into that house, pour a cup of coffee, raid the fridge, and turn on the tv - then see what the owners do. I won't because it would be wrong, but i want to.

[@JaguwarSims]

And you might find yourself entering the home of the one armed Lefty in your neighborhood LOL But yeah, I feel ya.

[@AliciatheCho]

Do it and report back

[@jefffinkbonner9551]

Probably not worth it if all they have is kombucha, tofu over kale, and msnbc on tv 😒

[@racheljames7]

I dont think it's disordered to want to prove a good point. Plus it's hilarious 😂

[@mxfellaheen]

Imagine if Christ had a sign on His door saying "All are welcome." (In fact he does) That invitation isn’t a free pass to barge in, help yourself to His coffee, or raid His fridge without a word. In His home, everyone who approaches is received with genuine warmth and hospitality-but it's an invitation that comes with respect for His space and His order. Christ’s open invitation reflects His heart for every person, yet it’s not an endorsement for unruly behavior. True hospitality, as taught by Jesus, is a reciprocal gift: guests are welcomed, cared for, and valued, but they also honor the boundaries and efforts of their host. So while the message is "everyone is welcome," it doesn’t mean you have the right to exploit that hospitality. It calls us to engage with love, respect, and responsibility-a balance that enriches both the giver and the receiver. I will pray you revisit his teachings and receive them with an open heart and mind.

[@Lee-zt9vl]

Any time we attempt to remove hierarchy and boundaries by saying things like “love everyone the same”, “love is love”, “all are welcome” or - my personal unfavorite: “everything is art”, the words coming out of our mouths completely lose their meaning. It is a verbal act of chaos.

[@pmonkey4life]

Wonderfully put

[@Pat.hibuleire]

So the catholic church has bundaries Jesus the mexicano is not your brother in christ

[@joytotheworld9109]

It is an act of chaos because it is lying at it's heart. Love is love as a simple tautology is always true, but the vile lie that all love is equal, equivalent, or worthy of Gods approval is from the pit of hell. The unnatural love of money is the root of many evils. Greed is love of a certain foul kind, one to be rejected.

[@joytotheworld9109]

​@Pat.hibuleireVatican city has long had walls and guards, demanded by prudence. Leaving such art and holy artifacts unguarded would be putting God to the test or effectively handing them out to theives. The Church is universal, nobody is barred from entry if they are sincere and willing. Countries are not like this, borders still exist and with good reason. Wars have always been an issue, since the nation states we have had a lot less of them in most places, but technology has made them bigger, more organized and more deadly.

[@Pat.hibuleire]

@joytotheworld9109 we may find all the excuses you want To love jesus the mexicano like jesus Love him that s à commandement of christ

[@chommie5350]

YEP....... CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME. I used to tell my sister that..... She used to run around helping homeless kids..... BUT NEGLECTING HER OWN KIDS AT HOME.

[@stephanie4949]

@@chommie5350 I suspect similar scenarios happen very often, sadly. Sometimes glamorous, well-recognized service to a wider community is used as a substitute for less glamorous and less well-recognized primary duties to our immediate family, relatives, friends, and neighbors. These duties often must be done without any public recognition or appreciation. But by fulfilling them with love, you build up the greatest treasure in heaven! 😇

[@racheljames7]

Well done you. I hope your sister stopped being a horrible mother and is a good mother now.

[@hollythebordercollie2257]

Isn't also about responsibility? We feed/clothe our own children because they are our personal responsibility, we are not able to look after every child even though we (hopefully) think they are all equally deserving of care. We have a duty to help others too but clearly we could not treat every person in the world in the same way we treat our family because that would 1) be impossible and 2) people need to feel special to those close to them not just equal to everyone (imagine your parent saying 'I love you just the same but not more than every other child in the world')

[@littlemissprickles]

I think it was Michael Knowles who did his own video on this and he said of course you should save a drowning child, but if both your own child and another are drowning, of course you save your child first.

[@hollythebordercollie2257]

@@littlemissprickles That sounds wrong but imagine saving your child second (all other things being equal of course). You should save either your own child or the child in most imminent danger hopefully you can do both

[@anamarkov3952]

@@hollythebordercollie2257that sounds wrong? How? As a parent, your responsibility is to your child first . Of course, if your child has a bruise and the other is gushing blood, you help the other one first. But if the circumstances are unknown, or it is the default setting, or when everything is good around you, your focus is always on your own children.

[@hollythebordercollie2257]

@@anamarkov3952 Yes of course your primary responsibility is your own child

[@mxfellaheen]

Ultimately, recognizing different duties does not violate the principle of universal love; rather, it ensures that our love is grounded, intentional, and capable of radiating outward from a stable, well-tended center. If we fail to care for those entrusted to us, we neglect our primary vocation. But if we grow in love at home, it should strengthen and expand our capacity to love others as well not reject and exclude them.

[@edwardkornuszko4083]

Thank you. God bless you.

[@PatriciaMcGloin-f8y]

J. D. Vance is correct.

[@sethmoking]

1 Timothy 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

[@Dseanstrickland-tt7bj]

So stop giving taxpayer money to a secularist state.

[@mxfellaheen]

For context in 1 Timothy 5, St. Paul addresses practical concerns regarding the care of widows in the early Christian community. He emphasizes that families should meet the needs of their own relatives to avoid unduly burdening the church. Within this broader context, he makes the declaration you list here (1 Timothy 5:8). Here, Paul rightly insists that believers must not neglect their fundamental responsibility to care for immediate family members. However far from negating any wider obligations, this passage aligns with the idea that love naturally begins within one’s household and then expands outward. Jesus, for example, frequently moves beyond his inner circle to engage with those deemed outsiders-He dines with tax collectors and sinners (Mark 2:15-17), praises a Roman centurion’s faith (Matthew 8:5-13), and identifies welcoming strangers as a hallmark of discipleship (Matthew 25:35). Likewise, Paul extends goodwill beyond his immediate circles: when he and Silas were imprisoned in Philippi, they acted with compassion toward the jailer who was about to take his own life, ultimately bringing him and his household to faith (Acts 16:25-34). This incident illustrates the Christian call to reach out with mercy to those far removed from one’s community or comfort zone. While believers have a clear responsibility to care for their own households, this care does not absolve you from treating outsiders with genuine compassion. By striking a balance between tending to one’s family and welcoming outsiders, Christians can model the depth and breadth of the Gospel’s call to charity.

[@teresasnamesake4784]

I appreciate that you are analyzing this message. Thank you Brian. We can have love and concern for people all over the world, but our responsibility for our devotion of time and resources begins with our nearest neighbor: those in our household and family, and then outward to people in our daily contact: work, school, our immediate neighborhood, church, etc..

[@Vigula]

As pointed out in St Paul's letter 1Timothy 5:8 "But 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". The only reason the good Samaritan was able to help his fellow man was because he not only had the heart to do so but the resources to do so. God bless, V

[@mxfellaheen]

As the wealthiest nation in the world-and indeed in the history of the world-we have been entrusted with immense resources, not for hoarding, but for stewarding in accordance with God’s call to love. While it is right to seek the flourishing of our own household, to claim a resource limitation as a justification for turning away those whom God has placed in our path runs counter to the order of love. Love demands sacrifice, generosity, and trust in God’s provision, not fear-driven scarcity thinking. If God has given us much, it is so that we may give much in return.

[@emikke]

He's talking about a heat map which shows a difference between how Conservatives and Liberals are different.

[@turtlesongs2012]

Brian! You're a good egg. God bless you!

[@chiky2000]

There is a great difference between helping strangers & letting those strangers enter your home unchecked then bring crime or disease later. It’s anti love to only let strangers enter your home because they broke in while ignoring other genuine refugee that refuse or can’t cross the border of another country. I support helping other but the industrial scale border crossing is a problem many countries greatly resist.

[@mxfellaheen]

Striking a responsible balance between welcoming strangers and ensuring legitimate security is challenging, but from a Christian perspective, the starting point must always be the inherent dignity of every human person. Genuine love demands both thoughtful prudence and a willingness to step beyond our comfort zones to offer hospitality, recalling that Christ identifies Himself with those who need shelter and care. A more robust commitment to legal pathways for immigration (if JD Vance is meaningfully advocating for this please correct me) which would serve both the common good and the call to love our neighbor, ensuring that those fleeing desperate situations can find hope without resorting to chaotic or dangerous channels. Where is the Christian call for more legal pathways?

[@beachgirl9234]

Vice President Vance has a lot of logical common sense, and wow, if everyone did this, we would have a better family, community, and country, and it would impact the world!!!

[@videos_iwonderwhy]

Many (too many) understand Vance s rhetoric as "be generous to your American neighbors. Disregard completely your migrant neighbor".

[@mxfellaheen]

You have set up the pro immigrant and refuge argument perfectly. Loving migrants and immigrants does come at a cost, especially when God has placed them at our doorstep as our literal neighbors. I agree that true love requires discernment-it is not blind or naive-but it also recognizes that God, in His providence, has set these people in our path. Our responsibility is not to ignore them, nor to love in sentiment alone, but to seek the good that love demands in each situation. And if we are to take Christ’s command to love our neighbor seriously, then we must recognize that deportation-the act of casting out those whom God has placed in our midst-does not align with that love.

[@sebwoz8766]

I love this comment section: Mother Theresa, JP2, CS Lewis, Dostoyevsky, etc. So many good quotes and comments. God bless you all! ❤

[@wendyfield7708]

But GOD SHOULD COME FIRST, before all that. +

[@cheeringpastchallenges]

That’s what I was thinking!

[@BriscoJr.]

The Brothers Karamazov deals with this issue brilliantly, as with so many others, which is why it's the world's greatest novel.

[@mjones4083]

My (wise ) old granny used to say "look after your own because no one else will " . How right she was . I no longer want to " look after " those who are never truly grateful and (usually ) end end hating /despising us (in the West ) even more . Let them (try) and look after themselves for a change .

[@TheHumilityChannel]

So based on that theory, if I’m a Christian living in Iran, my obligation is to stand with my compatriots against the Christians of the West? Think again, brother. I am one who was hurt incredibly by such ideologies. Imagine, for instance, being an orphan with no “family” who fled to a faraway land. The people of that faraway land then have all the right to treat you LAST. That is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. Read the parable of the Good Samaritan. Read Matthew 12:48-50: “But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brethren! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother.” God bless.

[@luigimrlgaming9484]

Then do not apply it as it does not apply to your situation.

[@Fine_Carpentry]

well done Brian, you nailed it!

[@BlueBuffelow]

Someone above called this a succinct lesson in what love means. No disrespect intended, but I beg to differ. Here's why: At c. 3:50 Brian is dead on target. But here are two analogies that summarize the rest of the video in two paragraphs. The point of underlining is to emphasize the word/s underlined. If you underline every word on a page you defeat the purpose of underlining. To begin with, every word on the page was equal, once you underline every word, they are equal again. Underlining creates a hierarchy of importance. The Order of love is a hierarchy, and (as Jordan Peterson has repeatedly pointed out) hierarchies are how human beings create meaning. So, if love is to be meaningful, it has to operate within some sort of hierarchy. Loving everyone,like underlining all the words on a page, renders love meaningless. I'll allow myself an extra paragraph for the purpose of pointing out that this habit ("loving" everyone) is of Marxist origin. I'll demonstrate: If you have 999,999 people, all of whom have a dollar, and one millionaire, and you redistribute the money so everyone has the same amount, you have not helped the "masses"; now you have a million persons with two dollars. When there was a hierarchy of wealth, jobs could be created by circulating the millionaire's money and creating an economy. Now you just have a million paupers.

[@GMAAndy333]

Show me a parent who neglects their own children to go out and help a stranger is a bad parent.

[@racheljames7]

I completely agree. Imagine if social services gave a foster child to a parent and the foster child thrived and even got a bit overweight from all the care they were given, while the biological child of the parent was underweight and wearing rags.

[@zachbrown5264]

Brian, this video was brave. Thanks for not hiding.

[@boguslav9502]

I came to a similar conclusion on the hierarchy of love a while back at university. I called it "good neighbors require fences." The point was that if you want to fix the world in a genuine way you need to start locally. The only way we can create a good world is through nations, regions, etc. setting up fences, controlling what happens within, before extending a hand out. IMagine you have a town and there is trash everywhere. Everyone litters and nobody picks anything up. Eventually it becomes a dump. Then slowly, some random families start cleaning up their own land, their backyards. Suddenly the town isnt so dirty. After they get their own in order they begin to clean up the space in front of their property, others join in, eventually nearly the entire neighborhood is clean. Meanwhile everyone stops those who litter from literring into their yards. Those who cannot clean themselves are helped at the end, and those who are meneces are forced to clean, or leave, are punished until they clean. Many people make out nationalism to be a hateful ideology. But really its just about the above. Its about loving enough to care and actually do something, and the only lament is that people have taken nationalism to be chauvinism or imperialism, when its the opposite.

[@XMVBitte]

Interesting idea. But the fences themselves don't do any good in that case. By the time your town has become a dump, it is much more likely that someone from the outside comes and does not partake in the littering culture in your town. And you mention that those who are menaces are forced to clean, leave or being punished until they clean. That has nothing to do with nationalism but rather establishing a culture of love and respect. Imagine you are the only one that cleans up his own land but the rest of the town prevents others with the right mindset to come into your town through hindering them with fences. People who would help you clean up are inhibited and your town stays a dump. The concept of love and setting borders has nothing to do with physical borders but, as you described it, hindering people who would not comply with what's right from staying that way or tolerating it. Matthew 18:15-20 15 “If your brother or sister[b] sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. 18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven. 19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

[@mistermusik]

Well said. Thanks.

[@JoAnnFuir]

For some folks, it's easier to love strangers than their own families.

[@philliponfri7938]

Amen, thank you so much for this. Well said and expressed. Many blessings brother.

[@nicklowe_]

The idea that what Vance said needs any theological justification is a little silly. He just said something so common sense that none of us think about it.

[@antoninoskomnenos1022]

"The real test of love is that you can love when it actually costs you something." And the fact that these people don't want to shoulder the challenges of welcoming migrants and refugees in their communities shows that they don't love them. "Loving...the stranger or the migrant, that doesn't actually cost you anything." If it costs you nothing, then why are you so against it?

[@mxfellaheen]

Yes, he stops just short of the next obvious conclusion, that it does cost, because God saw fit to put them in our path and has quite literally made them our neighbors.

[@FSR431]

For God so Loved the world that He gave his Son... John 3:16. Only God could love the whole world with a quality to give his Son.

[@slademurf2620]

Spot on, Brian! For man, “loving everyone” amounts to generally having no ill will. It is a vague and weak proclamation made often by those who have no family of their own to know a strong will for the good of another.

[@joolz5747]

Thank you. Please listen to Bishop Strickland who wrote an excellent letter on all this. All this was brought about by JD Vance, speaking truth and honesty. We are blessed to have JD Vance and Trump here in the USA at the moment.

[@rongablue]

Benevolence begins in the home.

[@ronmartinez2766]

Excellent!

[@GonzoTheRosarian]

St. Paul 1 Timothy5:8. St. Augustine’s Ordo Amoris. St. Thomas Aquinas also delves into this. The order goes in level of responsibility. I thank you for your commentary.

[@bradleymarshall5489]

“But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.” 1 Timothy 5:8

[@JoAnnFuir]

Powerful verse!

[@nortons7040]

"Can you then be Righteous, unless you be just in rendering to Things their due esteem? All things were made to be yours; and you were made to prize them according to their value: which is your office and duty, the end for which you were created, and the means whereby you enjoy. The end for which you were created, is that by prizing all that God hath done, you may enjoy yourself and Him in Blessedness". (Thomas Traherne, "Centuries of Meditations") "For love itself is to be ordinately loved, because we do well to love that which, when we love it, makes us live well and virtuously. So that it seems to me that it is a brief but true definition of virtue to say, it is the order of love". (Augustine, City of God, XV.22)

[@patrickcate1070]

This is silly. The whole premise falls apart when you realize there are actually a few mistakes in the syllogism, namely the middle, which makes the assertion that we are collectively threatened with a choice that protecting immigrants (with the barest of support imaginable at this time because as we know immigrants are incredibly exploited) somehow competes with ordo amoris, or our primary responsibility to our family (which isn’t actually love, necessarily. Our births are as far as we know arbitrary, and therefore our families as well in so far as we don’t choose our birth family, outside the wisdom of god, which practically means unknowable to us). That is a false dichotomy. Serving both immigrants and our families is still possible in this world, a resource rich world. We also have to assume that an individual is tantamount to being the state, as in this case the ones doing the prioritizing of our loved ones will be the government. I don’t think that’s what the Bible meant, at least as it’s argued here.

[@SuperTommox]

We should love the homeless and help them, but that doesn't mean we should open our own homes to everyone. That won't solve the problem and put everyone at risk.

[@janicemclain7892]

I love Jimmy's Mysterious World and especially Weird Questions, but I seem to have detected a rare misstatement by Jimmy. Around 30:15 and again around 30:42 he states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from "the Father THROUGH the Son." This is indeed still the Orthodox Churches' position, but per the CCC 246, "The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit 'proceeds from the Father AND the Son (filioque).'" The Catechism 246-248 further discusses this distinction. Many consider this disagreement on the filioque as one of the causes of the schism between the Eastern and Western churches.

[@marcelw6045]

Vance is a rockstar; as a TLM American, I hope he becomes our president in four years for eight of his own at the helm.

[@AmericanImperium1776]

Vance/Tulsi 2028 & 2032! That's the dream!

[@davidrojas6457]

As a NO American, I agree!

[@ninjamaster3453]

His family is divided. His own wife and kids aren't even Catholic

[@jefffinkbonner9551]

@@ninjamaster3453 Not yet 😏

[@davidb9639]

He turned his back on everything he ever believed in for the sake of political power. Thomas More he ain't

[@gregnagel4217]

Thanks Brian. Great discussion!

[@Astorath_the_Grim]

Sacrifing the well-being of your children in favor of the well-being of a random stranger is obviously not Christian.

[@StanleyPinchak]

I'm looking at you, open border policy. 🧐

[@Dseanstrickland-tt7bj]

I don't know, you guys sure like sacrificing US for the state of Israel ╮(╯▽╰)╭

[@bthemedia]

Well said as always Brian!

[@stephanie4949]

Thanks so much, Brian, for this spot-on analysis of the moral and philosophical flaws in the open-borders mentality.

[@JohnBaran-kw5jf]

"A short time ago Mrs. Besant, in an interesting essay, announced that there was only one religion in the world, that all faiths were only versions or perversions of it, and that she was quite prepared to say what it was. According to Mrs. Besant this universal Church is simply the universal self. *It is the doctrine that we are really all one person;* that there are no real walls of individuality between man and man. If I may put it so, she does not tell us to love our neighbours; she tells us to be our neighbours. That is Mrs. Besant's thoughtful and suggestive description of the religion in which all men must find themselves in agreement. And I never heard of any suggestion in my life with which I more violently disagree. *I want to love my neighbour not because he is I, but precisely because he is not I.* I want to adore the world, not as one likes a looking-glass, because it is one's self, but as one loves a woman, because she is entirely different. If souls are separate love is possible. If souls are united love is obviously impossible. A man may be said loosely to love himself, but he can hardly fall in love with himself, or, if he does, it must be a monotonous courtship." - G.K. Chesterton I think this is what is actually going on with the Catholics who cannot accept the _Order of love._ They are actually Eastern Spiritualists.

[@catholicmorningoffering]

Excellent! Thank you!

[@millergre]

Do the duty closest to you.

[@dalescott831]

Find where the true need is, move close to it, and do your duty there.

[@knightrider585]

Great explanation of this question. Thanks.

[@annsaunders5768]

Loved this. Thank you...

[@rekindlefitness]

Fantastic video. Thank you for your amazing channel!

[@jeditear1]

I think most people would admit that it should be frowned upon for a father of a family who spends a disproportionate amount of time and resources on people outside his own home, while neglecting to take care of his own family. This is the same principle, but on a massive scale. I see folks keep trying to argue that “America is fine “. We may be better off on the scale of having basic needs taken care of… but our country is suffering massively in the spiritual real and mental and physical health realm… let alone how our government policies have been run. We need to refocus on our own home again, so we can more properly go out to others.

[@lkae4]

Same with empathy-- people claim to believe in empathy but they actually care very little about the feelings and welfare of others.

[@AliciatheCho]

And many will never have to be the victim of their empathy. Good intentions and paving the road to Hell, as the saying goes

[@craigthorn3190]

The order of love misses the most critical component... We are to love others, including our enemies, with the Love from the well-spring of God's Love. It isn't ours. What is missing is the great commandment... Love God 1st. Matthew 22:37-40 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. God is not a respecter of persons... We are to make no distinction between brothers and sisters and our enemies... You are of the shallowest order... God is Love. Not something doled out as you described. His Love is what we are to share as He loves us.

[@MsTennisAddict]

I totally agree with what you’re saying. But how do you explain what Jesus said during the sermon on the mount. Matthew 5: 43-48? What’s hard is to love your enemy, not your neighbour. Genuine question… how do we reconcile both teachings? Although I can’t find anywhere in scripture where Jesus says you should love yourself and family first…

[@Lerian_V]

You need an understanding of not just the Bible but also Natural Theology in order to get it. If you're the "bible alone" type, you probably won't get it.

[@marystone1526]

Jesus treats loving those close to you as the default and loving those who persecute you the difficult thing you need to do _on top of_ loving your family. At no point does He say you're supposed to love your enemy _instead_ of your family. If one only loves his enemy but not his family, he's severely disordered by His teaching. Hope that helps.

[@MsTennisAddict]

@@marystone1526 Jesus says love God first then your neighbour as yourself. I can’t find a verse where he says love yourself, your neighbour then your enemy. Jesus says yes you have to love your neighbour, but also your enemy, there was no order in his teaching. Very difficult to achieve this standard but that is what it takes to follow God. Matthew 5 47 - “And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?”. Even non-believers love their neighbours. Anyways, all this to say that politicians should not use Jesus for their policies. I agree that a country should not have open borders, but this is not a Christian concept.

[@Agev_Cris]

@@MsTennisAddict ​This is where protestantism leads you, to even imply that you should keep away Christianity from politics, like the law of God has no business with the law of men. It's very simple, you have your house with your own family but you took others under your roof, you notice that this compromise in a negative way your own, Am I going against "love your enemy" teaching of our Lord if I expel them from my house? No, first they are not my enemies and second "love your enemy" isn't love your enemy more than your neighbour more so when the bible tell us to think first for those of our own: Galatians 6:9-10 : "And let us not be weary in welldoing, for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. As we therefore have opportunity, let us do good unto all men, ESPECIALLY unto those who are of the household of faith." 1 Timothy 5:8 :" But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel." The two big commandments of our Lord: love God first and love your neighbour should be regulated by the 10 commandments, having "love God first" the 3 first ones and "love your neighbour" the rest of them where the first of them is to honor your father and mother, which expand into the submission to the legitimate authority(as long as they do not go agains the rules of God) and consequently to your country, searching and desiring the well "being" of it. And one last thing, you seem to already have a bias by reading your conclusion in the last comment. You recognized that there are "two" teachings: "how do we reconcile both teachings?", what do you do with the other? throw it away? You will end up making it look like the Word of God is contradictory, which is not; you should stop in "I have a problem reconciling this two parts" and delve more into it instead of running to conclusions.

[@DesInDublin]

Very well said

[@robertbowe3628]

Well said, again.

[@gcr0003]

Are you able to put these on Spotify? They’re just a monologue anyway so I think they would be well suited as an audio only form.

[@FromAcrossTheDesert]

God could love the world. He is Almighty, all knowing, our loving. The great commandment tells us to love God with all our heart with all our mind with all our spirit with strength and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Loving God orient us to what is true and good.; We are called to love ourselves in the same way would love another our neighbor. What God love that God loves, and in loving God, let us love our neighbor.; And that is the person right next to you right now.

[@dalescott831]

Let us then find those who are in need, so we can be next to them and show them love!

[@aleksandragieralt7370]

I partially/mostly agree with JD Vance, for two reasons: the first being that the people who are immediately beside you are the ones you can help the most and the ones you are most likely to help successfully because you see the context in which they need help (vs when you hear "poor children in warm country south of the equator," for which the solution almost always seems to be "throw money at corrupt NGO"). This solves the problem of the Samaritan - he helped the person he was presented with. The other reason that applies to family in particular is that in the 4th commandment God orders offspring to love and obey their parents in particular (and marriage is a sacrament, while friendship, employment, citizenship, "being a citizen of the world," etc, are not), which implies one is more responsibile for their immediate family, who are a direct gift from God, than for others. I would add the caviat that "love" may be the incorrect term; he should have said "responsibility." Also, in terms of the quote in which Jesus dismissed Mary and the Apostles and refers to the crowd around Him as His mother, sister, and brother: Jesus was not dismissing them as unimportant, He was saying that we ought to try to emulate them by obeying Him. Likewise when a woman says to Him that the womb and breasts of Mary ought to be blest and He makes a comment that seems a little dismissive ("yes, but blessed art those who follow my commandments," I think), He is referring to Mary's fiat and, again, instead of devaluing her, He is encouraging His followers to emulate her

[@Agev_Cris]

Just a correction, the 4th commandment is not only for children, it is also for teenagers and adults. I don't want to be pedantic, is just that we must be precise with His rules.

[@aleksandragieralt7370]

@Agev_Cris oh I meant "offspring." I understand your point. Thanks :)

[@Agev_Cris]

@ Oh I apologize then, english is not my first language so I thought you meant little kids. God bless you.

[@aleksandragieralt7370]

@Agev_Cris that's fine. "Children" means both, but it could be confusing :)

[@nickmitchell5568]

While I agree that many simply love vague platitudes, I think the concern is that you can use this sort of "love your family first" idea to never engage with Christ's call to love the poor. Are we not called to welcome the stranger? To love the poor? To love our enemies? If so, and if we can't just stop at a vague platitude as you accuse the left of doing, then that means we need to go out of our way to get to know the poor, the stranger and our enemy, in order to show love to them. Right? I'm just saying. I think it goes both ways. Saying "I love everyone" and "I love my family first" can both result in failing at love entirely. Yes, your responsibility is to your family first (after God). But it is also very evident in the Gospel that we are called to love and serve the poor. I would say that it is more valuable to love a homeless guy who lives down the street as opposed to vaguely loving some poor child in Gaza. But most fail at both. Most don't go out of their way to reach out to those who Christ calls us to love. Would you agree?

[@MrMister1972]

Outstanding response

[@MomentumCrafter]

Excellent analysis

[@garymcwilliams6526]

The new commandment is to love others as God loves us.

[@jefffinkbonner9551]

The way Usha looks at JD while he speaks or takes the oath of office is the kind of love, honor, and affection any man would kill for. They have a lovely family, and I pray she (and their children if they’re not already) come into the Church! Also, his pastor needs to talk to him about his public support of the abortion pill being available and legal. That’s absolutely unacceptable.

[@michellebalnozan3972]

The fact that this is a debate is very sad. 😢

[@cinnamondan4984]

Perfectly put

[@Kitiwake]

Love your (in order of priority) 1. husband/wife 2. Mutual children 3 Step children 4. Natural parents 5. Natural siblings 6. Other family 7. Neighbor/Self.

[@AliciatheCho]

Disagree with the order of stepchildren. A stepchild is the natural child of one or both of the spouses. It’s not as simply as that and it can cause one to sin against step children. My bestie is traumatized because her dad and stepmom treated their mutual children better than her - even though she lived in the same house.

[@johntierney6300]

Well said Brian!

[@TheQueenofcat]

What to do if your parent loves doing charity more than taking care of you his/her family?

[@hannahkirchner1656]

This Catholic is behind Vance's view 100%. This is such an excellent segment. I really appreciate Brian Holdsworth. It explains why leftists go so wrong in putting ideologies, sister cities, and such things above their own families and communities.

[@marydolan6953]

If everyone took care of their family as best as they can the whole world would be less in need.

[@JoAnnFuir]

So very true. 😊

[@FredHoltslag]

Nice reminders and good (new to me) insights! Thanks, Brian.

[@BensWorkshop]

Good video Brian.

[@protestanttoorthodox3625]

Very well said friend

[@XMVBitte]

Did Jesus not love everyone equally? Do you say that he did refuse to actually love anything meaningfully?

[@johnny-westport]

We are all brothers and sister through God’s power of each and everyone’s creation. Love God first with all our abilities and the love for all others will naturally fall in line and in order. The words “love” and “hate” have become overused and misused words over the last few generations.

[@AmySisneros-u5k]

The concept makes sense but I don't believe this would apply to immigration. Isn't prayer for those in need also sharing love? With God anything is possible. We should strive towards God's view of love. This document is a human limited document on how to distribute love. I don't see the alignments with the teachings of the Bible.

[@ALittleWarriorforChrist]

100% spot on! Anyone who refutes what you said has not lived in a city where Paganism is present. PERIOD.

[@aloysiusmaina2625]

I am surprised 😮 to hear that some think that the order of love is not a Christian concept. That seems rather obvious.