Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
A ‘Pinocchio’ Rating for Pope Francis
A ‘Pinocchio’ Rating for Pope Francis
Apr 25, 2026 11:34 AM

Sandro Magister, Vatican correspondent for L’Espresso, notes in his Italian blog a recent TV program that “fact checks” the pope’s economics.

Here’s a translation of the blog post:

In his speeches Pope Francis often puts forth original theories of dubious foundations but that, for him, are of unshakable certainty and explain everything.

Take, for example, this from an interview a few days ago with the Belgian Catholic weekly “Tertio”:

“There is an economic theory that I have not verified, but I read in several books: that in human history, when a State could see that its accounts were not in good shape, waged war to balance its budget. That is to say, [war] is one of the easiest ways to create wealth.”

Or another theory in which the pope explains that the growth of poverty and inequality along with the advance of progress, made yet again in his November 13 homily in the Mass for the Jubilee of the socially excluded:

“This is the origin of the tragic contradiction of our age: as progress and new possibilities increase, which is a good thing, fewer and fewer people are able to benefit from them.”

Curiously, though, a few days ago, on December 8, during the first episode of a new RAI 2 program, this mantra of Pope Francis was gently but surely demolished.

The program is “Night Tabloid”, a late-night show conducted by Annalisa Bruchi, who is very good at simply and accurately plicated economic issues.

She eventually gave the floor to Davide De Luca, a young researcher who sat in the corner of the set and gave a sort of “political grade” based on real data – “fact checking” – as to the truth or falsehood of fashionable theories.

Well, in the first episode of the series, Pope Francis was examined for the above-mentioned claims that were replayed during the broadcast.

The final grade: “kind of Pinocchio” i.e., a lie.

In the video, the “grading” begins at the 42:50 mark.

The initial question posed by the presenter to the examiner is: “Has this globalization impoverished or enriched us, and whom?”

Here’s the transcript with the final verdict.

Q. – Has this globalization impoverished or enriched us, and whom?

A. – It is a difficult question to answer, but we can try. Surely there is a part of the population of developed countries that we can define as losers of globalization, that is, those who have lost.

For example in Europe, 9.5 percent of the population is at risk of poverty despite having a job. And this category is increasing: in 2006 it was 8.1 percent. In Italy the situation is even worse, with 11.5 percent of the population at risk of poverty despite having a job; in 2006 it was 9 percent.

Some say the problem is globalization because it has opened petition to developing countries with low-skilled labor.

Even the pope, Pope Francis, has spoken on this issue and tells us that it is not only our but a global problem: Progress and globalization are a problem for everyone. He said: “The more you increase the progress and possibilities, which is a good thing, fewer are the people who have access to them.”

The pope makes such an equation. He says, the greater the progress, the greater the people who are excluded.

And as we saw earlier, it is true, in part at least, for our countries. But if we extend the look to the rest of the world and we look at what has happened throughout the planet, this sentence does not seem so correct.

Take for example the number of undernourished people, i.e. those who do not have enough to eat. We see that in 1990-92 they were 18.6 per cent of the planet’s population. In 2014-16, that is, five years later, they fell to 10.9 percent.

We also see with extreme poverty, that is, those living on less than $2 a day, in 1990 it was 35 percent of the world’s population, one in three. Twenty-five years later, in 2013, they fell to 10.7 percent, one in ten. Is it because they all died? No, because in this same period, the world population increased by 1.9 billion to 7 billion people, who are much less poor, much less hungry.

So if we make this criticism of globalization, a bit as the pope does, an absolute one and say we have all been left behind, well, at the cost of being a bit blasphemous, we are forced to give the pope a “kind of Pinocchio.”

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
A swiftly tilting economics
I was waiting for the shuttle this morning when it struck me–an idea, I mean, not the shuttle. We talk a lot here at the Acton Institute about how economics needs morality and morality needs economics; or, as Fr. Sirico phrased it in his NRO salute to Ed Opitz, “Christianity qua Christianity [offers] no specific economic model any more than economics qua economics has any specific moral model to proffer—which is precisely why they both need each other.” I’ve thought...
Economic advice pro Bono
An interesting piece in Tuesday’s Financial Times (registration req.) by Jagdish Bhagwati, economist at Columbia University. In the form of a letter to U2 front man Bono, Dr. Bhagwati offers a (I think) stinging criticism of attempts to save Africa through appeals for more governmental spending. (This is especially interesting since Bono plays off the songsheet of another Columbia economist Jeffrey Sachs.) If you can find a copy of the article, I highly mend it, but in the meantime, here...
Ancient wisdom for an old problem
Washington lawmakers are falling all over themselves to pass legislation aimed at curbing corruption in high places. But, as Kevin Schmiesing points out, the most effective solution to the problem has been known for hundreds of years: limited government and moral restraint. Read the mentary here. ...
Putting the smackdown on materialism
Leon Wieseltier of The New Republic probably differs with us Acton folks on a lot of issues. But his review of Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell in the New York Times deserves some praise from all those who recognize metaphysical reality. Dennett’s book is simply another reductionist account of the world from an ostensibly “hard thinking” scientist, but Wieseltier’s article goes beyond a critique of the book. It is, more broadly, an eloquent debunking of materialism and defense of religion—not...
The Cartwrights and cowboy compassion
I was watching my favorite rerun on TV Land the other day, Bonanza. If you don’t know Bonanza, you should. It’s perhaps the classic TV western, and I was watching episode #68 from Season Three, “Springtime.” One of Ben Cartwright’s friends, Jedidiah Milbank is injured during a roughousing mud-wrestling match between Adam, Hoss and Little Joe. As reparation Ben volunteers the three boys to take care of Milbank’s business for him. It just so happens that there are three tasks,...
Beginning “The End of Poverty”
Although I am a year behind here, I have just started reading Jeffrey Sachs’s The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time, paperback just released by Penguin (with a foreword by Bono!). I’ll avoid the urge ment on everything that strikes me this or that way in the book–and I most certainly am not going to try to go head to head with Sachs on economic matters. But, being a student of language, I would like to point out...
Making media history
Google announced plans today to partner with the National Archives to digitize the institution’s media holdings, specifically through a pilot project to “digitize their video content and offer it to everyone in the world for free.” The plan is to make these resources readily available for educational use. As Jon Steinback, Product Marketing Manager of Google Video, writes, “For many momentous events, words and pictures don’t transmit the full sense of what has transpired. To see for one’s self, through...
He said it
Yesterday I mended Professor Plum’s EducatioNation, and I’ll do so again today. Here’s a tidbit from a recent post titled “We Need More Unions” on Prof. Plum’s blog: “Once again, America’s teachers unions reveal that all their blather about being child centered, about being stewards of America’s children, and about social justice and diversity, is nothing but a disguise for their real interest—which is self-preservation via monopolistic control of the means of education.” Prof. Plum, who daylights as a master’s...
Silver ring thing loses, but really wins
It may not seem like it, but the settlement reached between the ACLU and the US Department of Health and Human Services is really going to be good news in the long run for the abstinence-program Silver Ring Thing. In a deal struck yesterday, Silver Ring Thing (SRT) has been barred from all future federal grants and funding, unless it makes programmatic changes to “ensure the money isn’t used for religious purposes.” SRT has received about $1 million in government...
The right to be ignorant
One of my favorite websites to check out on occasion is Professor Plum’s EducatioNation, and the first quote on the homepage is this from Thomas Jefferson: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” [Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816] To underscore the relevancy of Jefferson’s point, a recently released study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum “found that 22 percent of Americans could...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved