Pope Francis and Holding "Amoral" Subjects to a Moral Standard

Critics debate whether Pope Francis has any standing to comment on matters of world economics. Andrew Napolitano at Fox News questions whether Francis possesses the competency to discuss youth unemployment. Elizabeth Stoker of The Week argues that the pope has the duty to hold world economics to a moral standard.

What's the Latest?


Judge Andrew P. Napolitano penned an article last year for Fox News that declared Pope Francis "wide of the mark" in matters of economics. Napolitano's criticisms of the pope reflect the thoughts of conservatives across America who question the pope's economic "competency" while tip-toeing to avoid delving into harsher (blasphemous) irreverence. Napolitano's article is seven months old yet The Week's Elizabeth Stoker found it relevant enough to write a response posted earlier today. She contends that the arguments posed by Francis' critics' can be summed up as such:

...the church should stick to spiritual matters and shouldn't dabble in "amoral" subjects like science, economics, or what have you.

What's the Big Idea?

Stoker's counterargument is that, for Francis and the church, there is no such thing as an amoral subject:

When Pope Francis comments upon economics, he doesn't provide concrete, wonkish policy prescriptions. This is not because he lacks the insight or creativity to do so, but because his critiques are ultimately aimed at the subjects' moral dimensions.

Francis consistently teaches that society puts itself at risk of committing the sin of idolatry -- the object of our worship being the unholy dollar. While Napolitano argues that Francis should focus on more "important" issues such as war and abortion, Stoker believes it the pope's duty to hold the supposed "amoral" subjects to moral standards. There already exists a moral debate about genocide; Francis may be trying to open the door to discussion about the injustices of modern economics. Stoker implies that folks like Napolitano don't want that discussion to happen.

After all, why should anyone let a little old thing like morality get in the way of making a buck?

Read Napolitano's article on Fox News & Stoker's at The Week

Photo credit: giulio napolitano / Shutterstock.com
Related Articles
Playlists
Keep reading Show less

Five foods that increase your psychological well-being

These five main food groups are important for your brain's health and likely to boost the production of feel-good chemicals.

Mind & Brain

We all know eating “healthy” food is good for our physical health and can decrease our risk of developing diabetes, cancer, obesity and heart disease. What is not as well known is that eating healthy food is also good for our mental health and can decrease our risk of depression and anxiety.

Keep reading Show less

For the 99%, the lines are getting blurry

Infographics show the classes and anxieties in the supposedly classless U.S. economy.

What is the middle class now, anyway? (JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)
Politics & Current Affairs

For those of us who follow politics, we’re used to commentators referring to the President’s low approval rating as a surprise given the U.S.'s “booming” economy. This seeming disconnect, however, should really prompt us to reconsider the measurements by which we assess the health of an economy. With a robust U.S. stock market and GDP and low unemployment figures, it’s easy to see why some think all is well. But looking at real U.S. wages, which have remained stagnant—and have, thus, in effect gone down given rising costs from inflation—a very different picture emerges. For the 1%, the economy is booming. For the rest of us, it’s hard to even know where we stand. A recent study by Porch (a home-improvement company) of blue-collar vs. white-collar workers shows how traditional categories are becoming less distinct—the study references "new-collar" workers, who require technical certifications but not college degrees. And a set of recent infographics from CreditLoan capturing the thoughts of America’s middle class as defined by the Pew Research Center shows how confused we are.

Keep reading Show less