The Religion News Service reported that Francis is currently the 5-2 favourite with British bookmaker William Hill to win the award, which will be announced by the Nobel Institute in Norway on October 10.

Irish bookmaker Paddy Power also considers him a leading contender.

The Pontiff's odds have fallen from 11-4 in a sign of his worldwide popularity.

"When the odds get shorter, that's when you sit up and pay attention," said Jon Ivan-Duke, spokesman for William Hill. "Maybe there's some divine inspiration at work."

Nevertheless, Francis is facing stiff competition from National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden and United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.

"Snowden has created as many fans as critics and would be a rather controversial choice," said Mr Ivan-Duke.

But the Pope is also facing a late challenge from Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani who survived a near-fatal shooting by the Taliban on her way to school in 2012.

When the brutal attack provoked an international outcry, Islamic clerics in Pakistan issued a fatwa against her attackers, but the Taliban reaffirmed its intent to kill Yousafzai as she recovered in the United Kingdom.

Now a human rights activist, Yousafzai has seen her odds halved from 20-1 to 10-1 but the Pope is still ahead of her.

"The betting suggests Pope Francis is in pole position to win the Nobel Peace Prize — he's the hot ticket," said Ivan-Duke.

"However, there's a late gamble on last year's favorite, Yousafzai, and she could be a real challenger to the Holy Father."

Since he was elected in March 2013, Francis has called for peace in areas of conflict including Iraq, Syria and Ukraine.

The 77-year-old was also outspoken on his visit to the Middle East this year calling for an end to the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians and praying beside the controversial concrete wall that separates Jerusalem from Bethlehem.

In June, he hosted a high-level prayer summit between Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and pressed Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu to scale back attacks during this summer's bloody conflict in Gaza.

Source

• Religion News Service
• Image: Haaretz

In each case, an individual chose to divulge classified information even though confidentiality agreements forbade it.

Both Private Manning and Mr. Snowden claim they were acting in the national interest.

They both chose to violate their obligations: Private Manning to the U.S. military, Mr. Snowden to a private government contractor.

They have been called both traitors and heroes, and the debate about their actions promises to continue for some time.

One question worth focusing on is the moral legitimacy of their choices.

At a time when more and more government information is designated as classified, and when employees of all stripes are required to keep information secret, when is it justifiable for an individual to go public with certain information?

The question extends beyond debates about national security to the actions of financial institutions, for example. Could the financial collapse of 2008 have been averted if more conscientious bankers had stepped forward?

In the 1970s Daniel Ellsberg, an employee at the Rand Corporation, was publicly castigated for leaking classified information about U.S. policy in Vietnam.

Today there are whistleblowers in all industries.

Before their actions are judged traitorous or heroic, it is worth revisiting certain moral categories.

The Catholic moral tradition offers a number of principles that can help guide those who face this moral challenge.

Conscience

The Catholic tradition strongly emphasizes the inviolability of conscience. Yet an individual must engage in a serious process of formation before taking actions based on its demands. "Following an unformed conscience is simply an act of recklessness," the Jesuit ethicist James F. Keenan told America.

Individuals must consider their role within society and how it relates to the common good.

For Private Manning and Mr. Snowden, their roles required a high level of confidentiality; so to be legitimate, their decision to release documents should have been a last resort.

At a time when it is increasingly easy to share data digitally, it can be tempting to pass on sensitive information without sufficient deliberation.

Employees must consider whether there are other ways to address their concerns, like going through official channels before divulging sensitive information to the media.

An individual must also be aware that the decision to leak documents could lead to imprisonment.

Willingness to accept legal punishment for one's actions is a sign that an act of disobedience is sincere. Continue reading

Sources

• America
• Image: UNL News Blog