What’s wrong with the South Africa we love?

What’s wrong with the South Africa we love?

Cardinal Wilfrid Napier ofm

Archbishop of Durban 

If I were a true Christian my answer to the question: What is wrong with South Africa would be: I am!

Yes, I am what is wrong with South Africa because I have not always thought, said or done what was needed, when it was needed, and the way it napierwas needed!

Second, I am what is wrong because I have not come out in support of the one or two, or dozens of South Africans who have spoken out or taken action when the occasion demanded.

Third, I am what is wrong because I have not challenged those in leadership when they’ve behaved like rulers who decide for “The People” what is good for them, rather than like governors who do all they can to implement what the People say they need to live a decent human life.

Fourth, I am what is wrong because I have not taken the opportunities offered to stand up for the Truth, when it was being abused and violated by those who will use any means to make themselves look good, or justify the moral shortcuts they are taking.


Now, let’s look at some of the wrongs that have plagued us during the past year and the one before and so on, which I have not acted to put right:


1. A President who speaks and behaves as if he no longer sees himself as President of all the country and of all in the country. More often than not we are uncertain if being President of his Party, of his Tribal Group, of his Family,

comes before being President of all South Africans regardless of race, colour, creed; or social class including the Poor!

Un-presidential behaviour and speeches leave many disappointed, disillusioned, downright ashamed of having trusted or even given the benefit of the doubt in regard to his moral lapses, financial mismanagement of his own family and personal affairs, let alone the Nkandla debacle of recent date.

Most of all I am disappointed that I have not spoken out after voicing my doubts about his suitability to represent the country from a moral and ethical point of view right at the beginning.

Now he’s been elected leader of the ANC, is the country to suffer another whole decade of mediocrity, dishonesty, pretence, even to the point of reverse apartheid.


2. Manner of putting right the wrongs of apartheid

Today, many, including myself, are upset about being victims of new race classification which is passed off and applied as “justifiable discrimination” because it is meant to benefit the “previously disadvantaged (PD)!”

It is a moot question whether discrimination can ever be justified? Whether it is White Discrimination or Black Discrimination, it remains Discrimination! And our Constitution says there should be no discrimination. And former President Mandela said he would stand up against any type of discrimination!


3. Race discrimination re-introduced by sleight of hand

Who are the “previously disadvantaged”? Are they all Blacks, all Coloureds, all Indian? What? Since the Race Classification Act was one of the first to be removed from the Statute Book post apartheid, what criteria are used to classify citizens today? Do the “previously disadvantaged” automatically include the descendents of the Matanzima’s, Selebe’s, Mangope’s and Mphephu’s, who by their abusive rule proved themselves to be Rulers who ruled the people through their Ruling Parties?

God save us from a similar fate under our Governing Party!


4. South Africa’s “Crime against Humanity”

The Crime against Humanity in RSA is the total and utter disregard and disrespect for the life and limb of the human person. Nothing can have brought this to the fore more graphically than the stark contrast between South Africa’s muted reaction to crime and violence and the furore in India over the assault, rape and murder of a student of that country. There ordinary people spontaneously, but vigorously and unequivocally arose in protest saying with one voice: Enough is Enough!

Oh, if only we would imitate the Indians. At present we cannot, but at least let us begin by sitting down to do serious introspection into the root causes of our shameful contempt for human life. Then perhaps meaningful actions may follow!


5. Are we capable of changing? I believe we are but only if we do two things:

First we must give God back his proper place in public life as acknowledged in our Constitution. There we ask Him to bless us and our country. As any believer, of whatever faith will readily affirm: You cannot ask for and expect to receive God’s blessing unless you are willing and committed to submitting to His will, in particular as it is expressed in His Commandments.

The second thing we need to do, is to take his Commandments seriously to heart especially the 5th “Thou shalt not kill!”


6. The “undemocratic” manner of electing the State President.

After two decades of experience, we clearly need a more democratic way of electing the Leader who is to preside over us as a nation. It is neither just nor fair to have an “elite” group of a couple of hundred Members of Parliament elect one who ought to represent the whole population of 50 million.


7. A second question regarding democratic representation concerns the “Party List System”. The principal problem with the List System is that candidates chosen to represent the electorate are patently failing in their task because they are beholden to the party which can promote or demote them at will and without reference to their performance in the eyes of those they are supposed to serve.


It is high time the findings of the Slabbert Commission were dusted off, studied, debated and put into practice.


These are just some of the reasons why I am what is wrong with South Africa and why I am responsible. My dream and prayer is that during this year 2013 God will bless each and every South African with the wisdom, compassion, justice and love that will enable us to come together again to consider the changes needed to give South Africa the best chance of being the winning nation in Africa and indeed in the world.



+Wilfrid Card Napier OFM

Archbishop of Durban

Gay marriage: priests to defy Church line with same-sex services

By John Bingham, Telegraph

Leading liberal priests in the Church of England are preparing to stage unofficial gay marriage ceremonies despite the Church’s official opposition to same-sex unions.

Campaigners claim that there could be “hundreds” of blessing services, complete with prayers, readings and even a form of vows taking place “under the radar” within the established church from early next year.

They believe a “groundswell” of support from within sections of the Church could eventually open the way for a challenge to the official line on same-sex weddings.

Others, including a handful of well known landmark churches and cathedrals, are planning to openly stage special services of “prayer and dedication” for gay couples, almost identical to blessings already on offer for heterosexual couples who chose to marry in a register office.

The Church of England has been a vocal opponent of David Cameron’s plans to allow gay couples to marry, which received the backing of the Commons on Tuesday, warning that it could even threaten disestablishment.

Bishops have negotiated a so-called “quadruple lock” of legal measure designed to prevent the priests being forced to carry out gay weddings against their will.

Read here

Abortion kills conscience and destroys peace: little-known Mother Theresa interview

February 7th, 2013 Posted in pro-life/abortion |

by Hilary White, LifeSite News

The assertion by Mother Theresa of Calcutta that abortion is the “greatest threat to peace in the world” has become proverbial in the pro-life world. In 1985, she reiterated and expanded on the point in an interview with New York journalist and pro-life activist Thom O’Connor that, until recently, has been almost unknown.

In the O’Connor interview, which is now publicly available after being uploaded onto Youtube, Mother Teresa explained that the unborn child, is created “in the image of God for greater things, to love and be loved. That is why it is such a terrible thing to think that the mother, to whom the child has been given as a gift of God, could destroy it.”

“That’s why I think that abortion has become the greatest destroyer of peace today because it destroys the life of the child, but also destroys the conscience of the mother also, and for years and years, she knows that she has murdered her own child,” she said.

The famed humanitarian called it “something unbelievable” that the “mother can murder her own child.”

Read here

The expanding gender agenda

February 7th, 2013 Posted in Gender, sex |

by Dale O’Leary, MercatorNet

Last month The New York Times published an article on the latest expansion of sexual identity among students at progressive universities in the United States. LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) no longer covers it, according to a handful of students who seem to have nothing better to do than reinvent themselves. “Generation LGBTQIA” want recognition for queer, intersex and asexual proclivities as well. According to the Times, this list by no means is final but continually being added to as students “move beyond the binary of male/female”, heterosexual/homosexual and reject the normal.

Most people are unaware of the inroads made by gender theory — the ideology that has produced “Generation LBGTQIA” — or of the dangers it presents. Part of the confusion lies in the fact that there are several different theories of gender each of which is based on a false understanding of the human person. The various theories — the gender perspective, gender identity and expression, and gender queer — are not logically consistent and are continually changing, making it difficult for those who try to critique them.

The term “gender” has become ubiquitous. The forms we routinely fill out, which previously asked for our sex, now asked for our gender. Most people assumed that gender was simply a polite synonym for sex – preferable since sex has a secondary meaning, namely as a shortened form for sexual intercourse. But those pushing the use of “gender” did not do so out of an over-scrupulous sense of propriety, for them gender and sex are not synonyms.

Read here