Pope Francis cluelessly decries nuclear power
#1
https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/po...ear-energy

So once again, Pope Francis denounces a topic of which his only knowledge seemingly comes from outdated pop-culture references or from left-wing sensational news outlets.

This time, it's nuclear power, which he thinks needs to be phased out until scientists "find out" how to make it "100%" safe.  Now, Francis has as much knowledge about nuclear power that you and I do about late 16th-century pottery making techniques.  Furthermore, he seems completely oblivious to the fact that his beloved "climate" goals are extremely dependent on keeping a sizable baseload of nuclear power generation.  He is probably also completely unaware that even formerly anti-nuclear outfits, like the Union of Concerned Scientists and even former anti-nuclear activists have come around to embracing nuclear power because the feasibility of mass-scale wind and solar replacing coal and gas is zero.  Even Sweden, home of his beloved Greta, is in favor of keeping their nuclear plants (about 40% of their energy) open because they realize that there is no viable, large-scale carbon free replacement. 

Francis probably doesn't know that nobody died from radiation sickness at Fukushima, nor TMI, and only a relatively small number even at Chernobyl.  But he just accepts the sensational, hyperbolic popular narrative about these accidents but speaks as if he were an expert on nuclear energy.

When you're talking about providing electricity for nearly 8 billion people over tens of millions of square miles, there are pros and cons to every generation method.  All of them have certain risks.  Just as there is an extremely tiny chance of a consequential nuclear accident, there are risks of blackouts, chaos, and economic interruption from relying on intermittent power sources like wind and solar.  He probably does not consider the pollution caused by mining for materials used in constructing solar panels nor what to do with them after their useful life. 

More so of a rant, especially since I have worked in this industry nearly all my life, but it's also another embarrassment to the Church when Francis eagerly speaks definitively about topics he knows nothing about.
[-] The following 3 users Like LionHippo's post:
  • antiquarian, jovan66102, Sacred Heart lover
Reply
#2
He's also wanting to change the Catechism (which, honestly, strikes me a bit like the US Supreme Court editing a Wikipedia article and saying that's the law now) to say the possession of nuclear weapons is also immoral.

Here's my question on that. Why does their use not fall under the principle of double effect? If a country at war bombs a military base, or a weapons factory, and it happens to blow up the house of the civilians living next door, the bombing is still moral since the civilian deaths were unintended. Is it proportionality? If so, if nuking an industrial area that's providing war supplies also happens to kill 100,000 civilians, but ends the war, preventing the deaths of a million soldiers and civilians, why is that immoral? Obviously we're not consequentialists - nuking the city intending to kill civilians and scare the enemy into surrendering is wrong - but intending a military target seems different. And does it matter if those civilians are building guns and planes and bombs and tanks and making uniforms and growing food and contributing to the war effort that way?

Besides, couldn't one side tell the other they're going to nuke a particular city in 48 hours, and to tell their civilians to evacuate? It would still destroy infrastructure and supplies and have a legitimate military purpose. It might be unlikely that politicians would agree to do so, but they could, and, if the Pope is right, perhaps a Catholic politician would morally have to do so, but if the unavoidable, unintended side effect is massive property damage, and the result is the other side's going to think twice about starting a war, seems like MAD might not have been so mad after all.

I also don't know what the Church has historically taught about war. Plenty of soldiers have become saints, including many who were in the Roman army, expanding the Empire. And the whole history of war is full of attacks on civilians, whether it's the practice of sacking a city if it refused to surrender in a siege and had to be taken by an assault or the attacks on merchant ships that went on as recently as the US Civil War and World War I. Did the Church ever say anything about civilians before the past hundred years or so?

At least we know that, once the Pope adds this to the Catechism, the Chinese will immediately get rid of all of their nuclear weapons. How do we know that? Because the Holy See just made a deal with China, and not do things like replace Catholic symbols in churches with, I don't know, portraits of Xi Jinping like the Communists love to do, turning their leaders into idols.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Paul's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#3
Is it just me, or is this section of the Catechism about as meaningless as you can get?


Quote:2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;111 it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.

What's actually being taught here? What are "strong moral reservations"? Is that anything like "inadmissible"? I think there's a very good argument that the nuclear arms race prevented war between the United States and the Soviet Union. There's a reason the Soviets never invaded Western Europe. They knew it would mean war with the US, and the US had nukes. And even without nukes, a third World War within a decade or two of the second would have been devastating to Europe. And it wouldn't have been hard for the Soviets to invade Alaska - you actually can see it from Russia - and from there, Canada, far less densely populated than the US - or just bomb the heck out of the west coast. Or Hawaii. 

The principal job of kings was always to protect their people. The peasants are those who work, the clergy are those who pray, the nobility are those who fight. And the job of a prime minister or president isn't any different. If a nation doesn't protect itself militarily, it's not going to be able to provide any sort of help for the poor, since the poor will either be dead, or so many resources will then have to be used to repel the invasion. Not spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons means that the enemy - who, being Communist, doesn't give a darn about what the Church has to say about anything - will produce them.

Obviously efforts to maintain peace are good things. But so much of this strikes me as a practical denial of the afterlife. Opponents of capital punishment treat death as the worst thing ever. Maybe so, if it ends your existence, and there's the possibility you're innocent. But if you're innocent of what you're being executed for, and you repent of your sins, and you ultimately accept your execution as your purgatory, then you'll get to heaven. War is unfortunate, especially with the scale of it since World War I, but we're back to death as the worst evil. And while it's good to care for the environment to help everyone have a better quality of life with good air and water, this world is temporary. Man will never "destroy the planet"; even if he manages to kill himself off, the planet will get back to normal even if it takes thousands of years. Which, if you believe contemporary science, is no time at all.

And why the concern over nukes? They've been used twice, and the horror of that has been a large part of why they've only been used twice. The Cold War's over. There's plenty of talk of war, but does anyone think there's a realistic chance the US or Russia will use them? Who is the Pope addressing? China? North Korea? Like they care about the Catechism.

It's all very much the liberal utopia-ist worldview. Just one more law, and we'll achieve heaven on earth. Banning guns doesn't stop people from wanting to kill, and finding ways to do it. State-run health care has its costs. Just ask Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard. But pass Obamacare, and nobody will ever die. Original sin and its consequences exist, and it's only in the next life that things will be perfect. But I suppose when you treat Christ as King only at the end of the Church year, erm, I mean, the end of time, instead of here and now, you get that mindset about this life.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Paul's post:
  • antiquarian
Reply
#4
(11-26-2019, 11:04 PM)Paul Wrote: Here's my question on that. Why does their use not fall under the principle of double effect? If a country at war bombs a military base, or a weapons factory, and it happens to blow up the house of the civilians living next door, the bombing is still moral since the civilian deaths were unintended. Is it proportionality? If so, if nuking an industrial area that's providing war supplies also happens to kill 100,000 civilians, but ends the war, preventing the deaths of a million soldiers and civilians, why is that immoral? Obviously we're not consequentialists - nuking the city intending to kill civilians and scare the enemy into surrendering is wrong - but intending a military target seems different. And does it matter if those civilians are building guns and planes and bombs and tanks and making uniforms and growing food and contributing to the war effort that way?

As far as I know, the means of doing that to a military base is what makes it immoral. Because of what a nuclear bomb does, indiscriminate destruction, that in itself makes it immoral to use like that (CCC 2314 for instance). Also for double-effect to apply at all:

"4. The foreseen beneficial effects must not be achieved by the means of the foreseen harmful effect;
5. The foreseen beneficial effects must be equal to or greater than the foreseen harmful effects (the proportionate judgment);
6. The beneficial effects must follow from the action at least as immediately as do the harmful effects."

Which nuking doesn't do, considering the radiation amongst other things. So it is sinful.
"The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of what shall I be afraid?"

"There is but one price at which souls are bought, and that is suffering united to My suffering on the cross. Pure love understands these words; carnal love will never understand them."
Reply
#5
(11-27-2019, 01:20 AM)The27thPsalm Wrote: As far as I know, the means of doing that to a military base is what makes it immoral. Because of what a nuclear bomb does, indiscriminate destruction, that in itself makes it immoral to use like that (CCC 2314 for instance). Also for double-effect to apply at all:

"4. The foreseen beneficial effects must not be achieved by the means of the foreseen harmful effect;
5. The foreseen beneficial effects must be equal to or greater than the foreseen harmful effects (the proportionate judgment);
6. The beneficial effects must follow from the action at least as immediately as do the harmful effects."

Which nuking doesn't do, considering the radiation amongst other things. So it is sinful.

CCC 2314 cites Gaudium et Spes as its source for that, and we know where that came from. Surely Popes have written about war and civilians prior to the 20th century.

4. The destruction of the military target, and perhaps other targets in the city (other factories, naval vessels in port, warehouses, etc.), achieves the effect, leaving the enemy less able to wage war, not the deaths of civilians.
5. Continuing the war will result in more deaths than a nuclear attack, even with radiation and long-term illness.
6. No more weapons factory/harbour/army base.

I suppose it would fail #4 if the impact of the civilian deaths is what motivates the enemy to surrender, although I would question whether those who are helping the war effort, even if civilians and non-combatants in a modern, Geneva convention sense, are illegitimate targets. If a factory which used to make cars is now making tanks, and those tanks are being used to kill your soldiers, why can't you blow up the tank factory even if the workers inside aren't members of the military? Does the nature of modern "total warfare", where the entire resources of the nation are being dedicated to the war effort, still allow for that distinction?

And what if you had a group of terrorists living in a cave out in the desert? Hardly anyone else, or maybe nobody, is around, and a nuclear weapon not only destroys the cave but makes the area unusable for them, and maybe a nuclear weapon is the only one available to get to where they are. And I don't know if nuking asteroids will really keep them from destroying Earth, or if that's just a Hollywood thing, but if so, that seems like a moral use of them. And it's not immoral to possess things that have moral uses, even if they can also be used for bad things. It's not immoral to own a computer because some people use it to look at porn.

The other problem with this whole thing is that rather than explain it, the Pope just edits the Catechism to say "this is bad". And with his history of such things, it's much harder for Catholics to accept what he's saying, even if he's right on this one. We're told over and over that Catholicism is logical and reasonable and not just 'because I say so'. Besides, to your average Catholic, the issue of nuclear weapons isn't that practical. There are only a few countries with them, and none of them have Catholic leaders. If the Pope wanted to meet with the leaders of countries that have them, maybe some of them would listen. Maybe they'd at least agree to a reduction or something. But editing the Catechism is going to have zero impact on China, or North Korea, or Israel. Or, for that matter, Russia, the UK, and the US. Getting pregnant and having to decide whether or not to abort is a decision many Catholics will have to make. Almost none of us are going to have to make the decision whether to launch nuclear weapons.

Why this, while remaining silent on the apostasy in Rome and failing to clean up the clergy after decades of sexual abuse? It's not the Cold War anymore. He's addressing something that's not urgent while doing it in a way that - if he's right - those whose minds need to be changed won't listen to him.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Paul's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#6
He hates fossil fuels.
Now he opposes nuclear.
.
It takes a lot of fossil fuels to build those solar panels and wind machines.  It take a lot of fossil fuels to lubricate those wind machines and soy products ain't gonna' cut it.
.
And how would he like his white robes to stay white without the machines, and modern detergents, to keep it white?
.
This fits in nicely with the other subject of infallibility.  Clearly, this Pope doesn't understand how the modern world works, literally, how it works.  Heck, tweets and instagrams require fossil fuels.
[-] The following 2 users Like MaryTN's post:
  • antiquarian, Sacred Heart lover
Reply
#7
If the British monarch declared England a Catholic country again, he would be calling for nuclear warfare in a heartbeat.
[-] The following 1 user Likes newenglandsun's post:
  • antiquarian
Reply
#8
(11-27-2019, 04:31 AM)newenglandsun Wrote: If the British monarch declared England a Catholic country again, he would be calling for nuclear warfare in a heartbeat.

He?

Is that Pope Francis, or King Francis II?
Reply
#9
(11-27-2019, 04:29 AM)MaryTN Wrote: He hates fossil fuels.
Now he opposes nuclear.
.
It takes a lot of fossil fuels to build those solar panels and wind machines.  It take a lot of fossil fuels to lubricate those wind machines and soy products ain't gonna' cut it.
.
And how would he like his white robes to stay white without the machines, and modern detergents, to keep it white?
.
This fits in nicely with the other subject of infallibility.  Clearly, this Pope doesn't understand how the modern world works, literally, how it works.  Heck, tweets and instagrams require fossil fuels.

Agenda 50, the UN plan for the world with the deadline of 2050 is for ZERO emissions worldwide.

They have a nice map of where humans will be allowed to live as well.

Remember Bergoglio said that we have to obey the UN.

Everyone should look up and know about the UN's plans for Agenda 21, Agenda 30 and Agenda 50.
Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist. 
The demons of the air together with the Antichrist will perform great wonders  
The Church will be in eclipse

-Our Lady of La Salette


Like Christ, His Bride the Church will undergo its own passion, burial, and resurrection.
-unknown traditional priest

Father Ripperger said that if we are detached from all things, aren't afraid to suffer, and we accept all suffering as the will of God for our sanctity, we have nothing to fear!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)