JD Vance Meets the Pope

On April 20, with the sun setting on his papacy, Vice President JD Vance, a staunch Catholic, had the opportunity to meet Pope Francis. This brief encounter occurred just a day before the pontiff’s passing, yet it notably skirted their well-documented disagreement regarding President Donald Trump’s immigration policies. Earlier in the year, Francis had made headlines by condemning plans for mass deportation, asserting that such actions “damage the dignity of many men and women” (“JD Vance Was Among Last to Meet Pope Francis,” Wall Street Journal, April 21, 2025). While I find it hard to dismiss the pope’s humanitarian concerns, the broader implications of their meeting present a more intriguing tableau.

While Pope Francis is widely recognized as a champion of leftist ideals and a proponent of “social justice,” JD Vance positions himself firmly on the right. One might wonder how these two figures can coexist within the same religious institution. Is this a fundamental clash of ideologies, or can casuistry manage to bridge the gap? Interestingly, they could theoretically align their perspectives by critiquing the common ground they both share against classical liberal political economy—if only they possessed a modicum of understanding of it.

As classical liberal and libertarian theorists elucidate, the notion of social justice only gains clarity within an authoritarian framework where political leaders dictate societal rewards and punishments. In contrast, a spontaneous order defies such authority; rewards and punishments emerge from largely impersonal factors, including who best satisfies the demands of an anonymous public on extensive markets, along with elements such as luck, accidents, and the immutable laws of physics.

To explore this further, let us examine what I consider to be the three significant strands of classical liberal or libertarian thought in contemporary discourse. (1) Friedrich Hayek presents a compelling argument against the concept of social justice in his work, The Mirage of Social Justice, originally featured in the third volume of his Law, Legislation, and Liberty. (2) The anarcho-liberal economist and political philosopher Anthony de Jasay arrives at a similar conclusion, emphasizing spontaneous rules of conduct devoid of state intervention in his book Justice and Its Surroundings. (3) Lastly, James Buchanan and the school of Constitutional Political Economy seek to rehabilitate the role of the state through the principle of unanimous consent, suggesting that justice resides in rules universally accepted rather than imposed by political authority; a summary of this can be found in Geoffrey Brennan and James Buchanan’s The Reason of Rules. (It’s noteworthy that for both Hayek and Buchanan, opposition to arbitrary forms of “social justice” does not preclude the state from providing certain types of income security.)

If these arguments hold water, we might conclude that both Pope Francis and JD Vance share a belief in “social justice”—albeit under different nomenclature. The pope advocates for political authorities to prioritize the underprivileged at the expense of the wealthy globally, while Vance champions the interests of groups deemed deserving by American political leaders—often those who are loyal to the ruling elite. One can imagine that many of Vance’s populist remarks would resonate with Francis, were it not for the particular “American” twist he puts on his favored groups (“JD Vance Proclaims ‘America First’ as Republicans Embrace Economic Populism,” Financial Times, July 18, 2014):

“We are done, ladies and gentlemen, catering to Wall Street. We’ll commit to the working man,” he declared. “We’re done importing foreign labor; we are going to fight for American citizens and their good jobs and their good wages.” He further asserted: “We need a leader who is not in the pocket of big business, but answers to the working man, union and non-union alike, a leader who won’t sell out to multinational corporations but will stand up for American corporations and American industry.”

In Argentina, Pope Francis earned the moniker “the Peronist pope,” drawing parallels to populist leader Juan Domingo Perón, whose presidency is often associated with the country’s decline. The Financial Times notes (Michael Stott, “Was Francis the first Peronist pope?” April 23, 2025):

“Perón used to say that the doctrine of Peronism was the social doctrine of the church,” remarked Ignácio Zuleta, who authored a study on Francis entitled The Peronist Pope. Both the church and Peronism emphasize social justice and a commitment to combating poverty while upholding conservative social values.

Whether through the lens of Francis or Vance, “social justice” emerges as a manifestation of a broader ideological framework. Both figures are collectivists at heart; they advocate for collective and political decisions over individual and private choices. They simply champion different collective choices regarding societal rewards and penalties. It’s evident that Vance would find common ground with Francis in their mutual opposition to what the pope termed “the neoliberal dogma [that] pursues easy profits as its main goal [and] continues to cause serious damage” (“Les 10 phrases marquantes du pape François : ‘Saint Pierre n’avait pas de compte en banque,’” Le Monde, April 20, 2025).

******************************

The accompanying image whimsically depicts Pope Francis and JD Vance arriving at the Pearly Gates, a delay presumably due to a minor hiccup in the space-time continuum. Before St. Peter, who assigns heavenly seating, the pope appears blissfully optimistic while Vance exudes a mix of naïveté and indignation. Indeed, both are proponents of “social justice,” yet their criteria for determining rewards and punishments diverge significantly.

Ultimately, in a realm devoid of scarcity like heaven, it’s essential for readers to recognize that these celestial assignments are mere rituals with no tangible consequences.