It's October and time for the Nobel Prizes to be awarded, including the Peace Prize. This year's winner seems to be a courageous person. Since Pope John Paul, a nominee several years running -- and the subject of speculation this time around -- was passed over again, it's also apparently time for Catholics to whine a little about the slight.
Not me, though. After all, some of the winners make it look like a prize for effort rather than achievement. Jimmy Carter's and Kim Dae Jung's efforts in Korea seem to have sputtered, and John Hume's and David Trimble's brave effort in Northern Ireland limps along inconclusively. Arafat, Peres, and Rabin got the prize in 1994, and Yasir's still calling in his bloodthirsty way for more "martyrs". Kissinger and Le Duc Tho -- well, enough of that.
A few winners have been plainly undeserving: Rigoberta Menchu appears to have won mainly by presenting a phony image that appealed to leftist sympathies.
It's hard to argue that Catholics have been particularly disfavored by the Nobel Institute: Kim's a Catholic; Bp. Belo of East Timor won in '96; I presume John Hume's a Catholic; of course there's Lech Walesa and Blessed Teresa.
Anyway, I figure the prize does more good if it goes to some relatively unknown figure whose efforts will be strengthened by it. The Pope's work for peace isn't going to change one whit. Yes, giving the Pope the prize would be instructive to the world's elites, but I'm not convinced they'd get much benefit from the lesson.
Update: David Brooks weighs in with an NYT op-ed.