How humans interact and conduct themselves is the concern of the law in general and since Christ has a great deal to say about how we live and treat each other, the law undoubtedly catches both approving nods and nasty looks from Christians on occasion. Every election cycle, for example, there seems an inherent need or requirement for the subject of immigration to come to the fore of public debate and discussion. Without exception, Christians on both sides of the subject are compelled to present why or why not certain immigration policies, realities, or enforcements are acceptable. In January of 2026 the Anglican bishop of San Joaquin, The Right Reverend Eric Menees wrote a pastoral letter to his diocese (and fellow Anglicans across the US) trying to strike a mean position between care for immigrants and the state’s obligation to enforce and enact certain laws.[1] The United States College of (Roman) Catholic Bishops released a statement that encouraged the nation to better protect immigrants and enact just laws relating to migration.[2] Local parishes and churches across the nation have thrown their support behind one side or the other of this contentious topic. And this is just one subject that seems “hot” in recent years; mention tax policy, education protocols, or others and wait for your Sunday dinner to quickly devolve into sly comments and verbal jabs.
Yet, to understand how Christians should interact with the civil laws they live under (immigration or otherwise), it would be prudent to look at law itself under three key elements: i) the end (i.e. goal) of law, ii) whether the law applies to all people or just some, and iii) whether Christians have a right or duty to obey or disobey certain laws or law in general. To do this, Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, provides a robust and admirable framework from which the faithful can work. This article will explain and expound, where appropriate, on his framework to educate and edify Christians in their considerations of immigration, abortion, wage law, theft, etc.
Biblical Foundations: Romans 13 and the Source of Authority
But first, it is worth noting what Biblical instructions we can glean to give us a starting place from which to approach and understand Aquinas’ treatment of law. Most famously, and mentioned by Bp. Menees, is Romans 13:1-7 in which St. Paul makes a strong case that Christians are to be subject to earthly authority on account that God is actually the cause of their authority. This civil or temporal lawgiver is to “execute his [God’s] wrath on the wrongdoer” (v. 4, all quotes are from the RSV unless otherwise noted). The ruler is given a sword by which to punish evil, but the Christian is not be afraid of him “for rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad” (v. 3). The Apostle’s words on earthly authority follow directly from chapter 12 where he expounds the faithful’s duty to God and other, which interestingly implies that how a Christian acts in relation to the law is ultimately a moral act, i.e. that it has moral implications. This is echoed by St. Peter’s epistle where he writes “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution… For it is God’s will that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men” (I Peter 2:13, 15). Again, a fairly clear warning about the hierarchy of authority, that God is over earthly rulers, and that they rule from His power and not of their own. If this is true, then disobeying them would seem to be against God, at least indirectly.
St. Peter and the Hierarchy of Human Institutions
To both of these it might be rightly objected that St. Peter himself said to the high priest; “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Let us, for the sake of argument, leave aside the precise context of St. Peter’s remark. Aquinas’s structure of eternal to natural then to human law supports the Apostle’s dismissal in certain ways. It is clear that Scripture has both given us warnings against opposing earthly authority and obeying it when it opposes God. Though these two points seem in conflict with one another, Thomas Aquinas provides just the method for allowing Christians to understand their obligation to God and how it relates to their obligation to human authority.
An important step is to define where Aquinas sees that human law originates, which will also dovetail nicely with St. Paul’s treatment in his Epistle to the Romans. Human law originates from the use of reason to determine what particular regulations are needed in which to apply the natural law to a human scenario.[3] The natural law, that which is inherent in all created things, is merely a creature’s participation in the eternal law of God.[4] Its participation is on account of being created in accord with an order that God intended, sometimes this is obvious and other times it is not, but natural law still exists and informs God’s creation. This three-tiered structure (eternal > natural > human) allows for a robust interpretation of Romans 13, since now it makes perfect sense why human authorities are to be obeyed since their laws, if just, participate in the law of God. Which then implies the moral duty Christians have to obey laws they even find inconvenient or incomprehensible.
The Teleology of Law: Happiness, Virtue, and the Common Good
Returning to the three elements mentioned above, the first (i) is that we must understand what end the law tends toward. Meaning, toward what does the law, in general, direct us? The end of driving a car is mainly to arrive at a destination, sometimes to see sights from the road, or occasionally to test a repair to the tires. Whatever the ultimate reason, there is indeed a reason to drive the car. So too with the law, it is not merely to employ lawyers or fill volumes on esteemed bookshelves in local courthouses. In the Prima Secundae Partis (I-II) of the Summa Theologiae, Aquinas lays out the simple yet powerful truth that the law is ordered toward the common happiness of those under it. He argues “the law must needs regard principally the relationship to happiness.”[5] The law is directing human action toward a common good and happiness that is also the purpose or end of society itself. Therefore, human law is that which contains, informs, or buttresses human actions to the end of further allowing for happiness and virtue. The law is not to be followed for its own sake but for a higher good.
Christians instinctively know this when they speak of ethics. Whether it be ice cream for supper or sex before marriage, the Scriptures and church have consistently taught that the bounding of human pleasure or desire actually expands freedom and grows virtuous habits. The law, both divine and human, are for the same end (happiness) but through different modes. This is why Aquinas says that human law is actually best promulgated by humans themselves, since it is their wish to become truly happy.[6] God is already perfect; He has no need of happiness as a created state or feeling. Even seemingly unjust laws, or laws that we disagree with vehemently, tend toward the end of human happiness since submission to them builds the virtue of both prudence and a right sense of justice. As we will see below, this does not apply to laws contrary to God directly, but the careful consideration of law is still worth our time and attention.
The Universal Scope of Temporal Jurisprudence
The second (ii) element is how far the law goes in scope. Succinctly, Aquinas makes clear that everyone under the authority of some ruler is subject to that ruler and the laws he enacts. We already heard “let every person be subject to the governing authorities” (Romans 13:1) from St. Paul. The Angelic Doctor agrees and states that every person who is subject to a certain authority (a king for instance) has an obligation to be subject to his laws.[7] There appears to be no exception from this since the person under the law is under the entire law, and he is under the law if he is subject to a lawgiver (see Matthew 22:21; James 2:10). There is, however, a way in which the Christian avoids this on account of their virtue and adherence to God’s laws. Since they closely follow the commands of our Lord, their will “is in harmony with the law, whereas the will of the wicked is discordant from it.”[8] This is not really a way to avoid human law, but merely a recognition that Christians should live in such a way that human laws are almost unnecessary since the faithful adhere to a higher and more comprehensive standard. Therefore, from the standpoint of who is subject to whom, no one is exempt from human law except the perfect, which aside from occasional parish showboating, none of us could honestly claim.
Additionally, it is worth noting that since the entirety of humanity desires the same end (happiness), being created for that end, that which directs them toward said end is authoritative over all of them. If twenty of us desire to all play baseball, the rules of baseball become authoritative for us. But as was said above, human law directs humans toward their end of happiness, therefore if there exists a temporal ruler, their decrees apply to everyone. This is also the same reason why the Gospel of Christ is always applicable, because it directs all humans toward their end of happiness, which is the enjoyment of and communion with God. No Christian would simply leave the Gospel aside since “these folks are really not made for and by God” since all humanity bears His image. Thusly, it follows that human law, though sometimes disjointed or lacking, has proper authority over humans both because of human authorities and the end that the law directs humanity toward.
The Limits of Obedience: Divine Law and Unjust Statutes
The third (iii) element is where Aquinas allows properly for some room for interpretation and maneuver. Firstly, he explains that while certain laws in general may be beneficial for the whole of society, in particular instances they may be clearly damaging or hurtful. This is related to the “spirit of the law” which is oftentimes mentioned. As was discussed above, the end of the law is for human good and happiness, but in cases where the law fails or actively impedes such things, and the lawgiver intends those good ends, the law can be set aside temporarily (q. 96, a. 6). Secondly, as was implied earlier, any law that is against the law of God is simply to be ignored by Christians. “[L]aws may be unjust through being opposed to the Divine good: such are the laws of tyrants inducing to idolatry, or to anything else contrary to the Divine law: and laws of this kind must nowise be observed.”[9] If either of these cases is present, Aquinas would advise that those laws must not (or need not) be obeyed since the right moral action is now to go against them. In these cases, the implication is also that the moral obligation to follow the law is not present since the laws referenced would only qualify as laws in name, not in actual nature. St. Augustine is often quoted here[10], with Aquinas quoting him as well, so it need not be repeated.
To complicate matters though, the Angelic Doctor does not let the Christian off easy. This is because he would strongly caution us that most Christians do not have what he calls “the competency” to judge whether a law can be disregarded or not. Meaning that Christians in most cases lack the authority to undermine or dispense with a law in any given case. To judge whether a certain law can be disregarded is properly purview of the lawgiver (e.g. a King, Congress, etc.) not those citizens under said law. While this sounds somewhat odd or harsh it is both Biblical and logical. St. Peter clearly implies that we are to follow laws even if they seem disagreeable or incomprehensible (I Peter 2:13-17). Why? Because most common people simply are not informed as to the effects or intents of most laws across a wide range of scenarios; this being why representatives exist in most democratic nations. Just as the bricklayer is competent to judge on the quality of a wall, so does the lawyer or judge have competency with the law. Since the eternal law is the parent of human law, human laws share in its binding of the conscience of Christians. The effect of a law being disregarded improperly would be morally damaging and in some cases irreparable. This should make those willing to throw aside whatever they disagree with think carefully because what a Christian dislikes and what is opposed to eternal law are rarely (if we are honest) the same thing.
Custom and Stability
Aquinas likewise cautions us on rapidly changing laws like they are clothing or pillow cases, because the force of law comes partly from what he calls, “custom,” which is humanity’s propensity to attain and keep a habit of action. Every time a law is changed, therefore, it loses some force and makes it more difficult to enforce and justly administer.
Wherefore human law should never be changed, unless, in some way or other, the common weal be compensated according to the extent of the harm done in this respect. Such compensation may arise either from some very great and every evident benefit conferred by the new enactment; or from the extreme urgency of the case.[11]
To be clear, Thomas Aquinas is not advocating for a blind obedience when a tyrant declares himself equivalent to a god (see Daniel 3). Nor is he saying that every law is under our private interpretation and desire. It must be something between these two extremes; and this is the first reason Aquinas helps Christians understand the law. Since the law directs humankind toward the good, it has a rightful place in our world. Yet it is also not that good toward which we are ultimately inclined (that being God). So, Christians should be careful when they begin to speak about disobeying laws or ignoring legal statutes, since they are in the moral realm where their actions and intent have real impact on themselves and others. A second reason is that Aquinas offers a reasonable and Scriptural way to approach the law and justice, since the morality of the law is primarily concerned with whether it is just. In this Christians can understand at what point does a law cross the line, though it seems implicit that Aquinas would demand believers act in communion with the church universal rather than attempting individual judgements of which we may well lack the competence. A third reason to listen to the Angelic Doctor is how his approach to human law is informed by natural and eternal law. These things act (ideally) in unison. This gives the church another ruler by which to measure the law made by humans: does this law produce or protect true human happiness and virtue? Does it violate a natural or divine law? If so, the church (both clergy and laity) should unite in rejecting that law and petitioning for something more virtuous and Christlike. In these United States, we live ostensibly in a republic that allows us real power to petition for laws to be changed or repealed. We have and should continue to use this path to make our nation more in the image of our Lord. But rejecting the law offhand or ignoring civil authorities is not the answer that the Bible would recommend, nor would our interlocutor Aquinas. The subject of law, then, is more complicated than simply seeing if you agree or disagree with what is being required by human laws. The faithful should be careful and cautious when speaking about the law since, as was argued above, it falls into the moral realm. If Christians ignore this in favor of shallow politics or misguided simplicity they will likely do harm to their neighbors and to themselves.
Conclusion
So, what shall the Christian do? Thomas Aquinas would seem to tell us to submit ourselves to all rightful and legal authority, even in areas where we might disagree or fail to understand. When something appears unjust, confer with clergy and laity to see if Scripture, tradition, and reason oppose the law in question. Speak out and use legal means to affect change. Email a representative, speak to a judge, vote differently, so on and so forth. By doing this Christians will make themselves more just and prudent and may even, through God’s grace, make a serious and long-lasting impact on society and all creation. This requires Christians to analyze the law and how it interacts with human beings; this analysis will ultimately transcend politics and will force the thinking Christian to consider when to act and when to speak. In turn, we will return to politics and law with a renewed understanding and vigor for the good of others and ourselves. It also requires a level of trust, first for earthly authority (which Americans sometimes struggle with) and second in church leaders as shepherds. As St. Peter teaches us “For it is God’s will that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God” (I Peter 2:15-16).
Image source: Wikimedia Commons.
Notes
- Rt. Rev. Dr. Eric Vawter Menees, “A Pastoral Statement from the Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin on Refugees and Immigration,” (2026). ↑
- United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Special Pastoral Message on Immigration,” (2025). ↑
- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 91, a. 3. ↑
- Aquinas, ST, I-II, q. 91, a. 2. ↑
- Aquinas, ST, I-II, q. 90, a. 2. ↑
- Aquinas, ST, I-II, q. 90, a. 3. ↑
- Aquinas, ST, I-II, q. 96, a. 5. ↑
- Aquinas, ST, I-II, q. 96, a. 5. ↑
- Aquinas, ST, I-II, q. 96, a. 4. ↑
- See On the Free Choice of the Will, Bk. 1, c. 5. ↑
- Aquinas, ST, I-II, q. 97, a. 2. ↑
