German Cardinal Issues Stark Warning About ‘Synodal Way’

His Eminence is one of the few Catholics in the German Episcopate. He's very worried about the synodal path to heresy and schism.

From Catholic News Agency

CNA Staff, Sep 28, 2020 / 02:00 pm MT (CNA).- A German cardinal issued a stark warning Saturday about his country’s controversial “Synodal Way.”

In an address to former students of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI in Rome Sept. 26, Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki said that the initiative’s draft texts appeared to press for the ordination of women to the priesthood. 

“The synod texts seem to want to prepare quite consciously for the consecration of women,” he said.

“If this should not succeed, new offices [for women] are to be created -- not because one could cite concrete ‘needs.’”

The “Synodal Way” is a process bringing together German lay people and bishops to discuss four major topics: the way power is exercised in the Church; sexual morality; the priesthood; and the role of women.

When the German bishops launched the initiative, they initially said that the deliberations would be “binding” on the German Church, prompting a Vatican intervention. 

In his address, recorded by EWTN - Katholisches TV and reported by CNA Deutsch, the archbishop of Cologne said that the push for female ordination seemed to be a response to the perception that the exclusion of women from ordained offices was “hurtful and unjust.”

“Certainly an answer must be found to this reality of life, but not against revelation,” he said. 

He explained that the “reality of life” that had led to the “Synodal Way” in the first place was the damage to the Church’s credibility in the wake of the clerical sexual abuse scandals. But he said that the draft texts did not reflect this.

“If only a marginal paragraph is devoted to this problem [of damaged credibility], I cannot deny the suspicion that this reality of life seems to be only a vehicle to make long-cherished wishes come true,” he said.

Woelki hit the headlines in Germany earlier this month when he said that the worst outcome would be if the Synodal Way “leads to a split and thereby outside of the Church, out of communion with the universal Church.”

In a Sept. 17 interview with the German Catholic news agency KNA, the cardinal said he feared that this would create “something like a German national church.” 

His comments were downplayed by Bishop Georg Bätzing, president of the German bishops’ conference, who insisted that the Church in Germany is “part of the Universal Church and nothing will change that.”

Woelki was one of the speakers at a symposium bringing together the Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI Circles of Alumni (Schülerkreise) in Rome. The circles consist of an older group of former doctoral students of Joseph Ratzinger and newer members inspired by the retired pope’s theology. 

Other speakers included Cardinal Luis Ladaria, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who wrote to Bätzing earlier month expressing alarm about an appeal by German theologians for intercommunion between Catholics and Protestants.

In his address, Woelki made further criticisms of the “Synodal Way” process.

He said: “I also cannot deny a further suspicion, namely that it is the tradition and interpretative communion with the universal Church that is called into question here, rather than the concern of finding real answers that do justice to realities of life as well as to the truth of revelation.”

“I would therefore like to emphasize once again: I am willing to engage in a dialogue about the realities of life. I am not prepared to do so against the living tradition of the Church.” 

He continued: “This distorts the Word of God. This makes dialogue with God impossible, which should lead us to our actual happiness and to true joy. This blocks the path to communion with Him, which makes us into the person we are truly supposed to be and yearn to be.”

Ahoy-Hoy

A bit of fun with Mr Burns and a few facts about answering the telephone.

Word of the Day: Peter's Pence

PETER'S PENCE. The annual contribution from the faithful of various countries to defray the expenses of the Holy See. It seems to have started in England, where each owner of land of certain value gave a penny. It was re-established by Pope Pius IX after having lapsed since the Reformation. In some countries the contributions are gathered by various associations; in others it is an annual collection sent by the bishops to the pope.

Boycott Peter’s Pence Collection This Weekend, October 4

If you want to know why you should boycott it, just search this blog or any Catholic news source for 'Becciu' to see how the money you contributed has been used!

From Complicit Clerg

Although Peter’s Pence has been embroil in scandal, U.S. Bishops intend to proceed with the collection this weekend.

According to the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), the purpose of the Peter’s Pence Collection is to provide the Holy Father with the financial means to respond to those who are suffering as a result of war, oppression, natural disaster, and disease. But recent reports have revealed only a fraction of donations — less than 10% — actually goes towards charitable relief services. The vast majority of the funds have been used to close Vatican budget gaps and invest in highly speculative ventures, including Hollywood movies and luxury rental property.

After these findings came to light late last year, a group of lay Catholics launched a class action lawsuit against the USCCB for their role in raising funds for Peter’s Pence.


Adding more fuel to the fire, last week we learned one of the most powerful Cardinals in the Vatican was ousted apparently due to his mishandled millions of dollars in charitable contributions from Peter’s Pence.

We strongly recommend faithful Catholics contribute to a more trustworthy charitable cause — consider one of the safe charities listed at Lepanto Institute.

TAKE ACTION

Print a copy of the boycott letter and place it in the collection plate this weekend.

If you have contributed to Peter’s Pence in the past, join the class action lawsuit.

Op-Ed: Science not a Threat to Faith

True science has never been a threat to the Faith. The false religion of 'scientism', espoused by many who call themselves scientists, is.

From Rorate Cæli

By Fr Paul Robinson

In the first months of 2015, I started what turned out to be the most difficult thing I had ever done, namely write a book (The Realist Guide to Religion and Science, Gracewing, 2018). Anyone who starts such a project knows that they have to have a strong motivation to do so. In my case, I wanted to set the record straight on the Church’s teaching on science in relation to the Bible. I could see that what I was taught as a seminarian and what I was teaching as a seminary professor somehow was not being passed on to the faithful. The book ended up having a much broader scope than originally intended, but it still very much included the originally intended corrective.

Why is the corrective needed? Because many faithful, on the one hand, make a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis 1 into a matter of faith and so, on the other hand, hold that the Big Bang Theory and Darwinian evolution are, of themselves, against the faith. For them, the authentic Catholic reading of Genesis 1 is that the universe was created in a full formed state 6000 years ago.

But this is simply not the case, and making that interpretation into a dogma creates theological, philosophical, and scientific difficulties, as I have explained elsewhere. What I would like to consider in this article is, firstly, the authentic teaching of the Church; secondly, why some Catholics are little inclined to accept that teaching; and finally, why their fear to accept it is groundless.

The authentic teaching of the Church

The first real evidence that the Earth is millions, if not billions, of years old came to light in the middle of the 19th century. It would not be until the 20th century that scientists figured out that there are other galaxies than our own and started to work their way to a 13.7-billion-year age for the universe. But it is much easier to investigate the geological processes that are going on in front of our eyes, and so scientists were able to determine the Earth’s ancient age more quickly than the universe’s ancient age.

What was the Church’s reaction when the evidence came forward? It was certainly not one of fear, as if the Earth being ancient could in any way impinge upon our Catholic faith or the inerrancy of the Bible. It was rather one of respect for the evidence and of careful explanation why that evidence was compatible with the faith.

The careful explanation included:

Pope Leo XIII saying in Providentissimus Deus that there can be no contradiction between faith and science, that Scripture speaks in popular language and not scientific language, that Catholics are not bound to follow the opinions of the Fathers in matters of science, and that whatever science finds to be true must be reconciled to a proper interpretation of Scripture.

1. Fr. Fulcran Vigouroux, the future Secretary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission under St. Pius X, stating in each edition of his seminary Scripture manual Manuel Biblique between 1890 and 1901 that the Bible gives no chronology, that there is no obligation to understand ‘day’ of Genesis 1 as a 24 hour period, and that the expressions ‘day’, ‘evening’, ‘morning’, and ‘rest’ in Genesis 1 are metaphorical.

2. The Pontifical Biblical Commission itself, in a decree signed by Fr. Vigouroux, stating in 1909 that ‘day’ can be interpreted as a certain period of time instead of a natural day and that, since the Fathers and Doctors were never certain in their interpretation of Genesis 1-3, Catholics may hold their own opinion on their meaning, as long as their opinion is not against the faith.

3. 
   

4. Pope Pius XII saying in Humani Generis that “the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter”.

5. These are the weightiest of the Catholic authorities of the time speaking on these questions. But, in point of fact, I have not been able to find any Catholic authority saying that the evidence for an ancient Earth must be rejected on grounds of faith, after consulting many seminary manuals and Catholic books on science from that period. Whether it be Cardinal Wiseman, Fr. Gerard Molloy, or St. Maximilian Kolbe; whether it be the great manualists Fillion, Gigot, Simon-Prado, and Renié; or whether it be the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia or the pre-Vatican II catechism My Catholic Faith—none of them require a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis 1; none of them have a problem with the Earth being millions of years old.

It was this climate of complete acceptance of real scientific evidence and reconciliation of that evidence with the faith that allowed for someone like Fr. Georges Lemaitre to propose the Big Bang Theory and for Pope Pius XII to embrace it in his 1951 speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

In short, there are simply no grounds for Catholics to believe that an ancient age for the Earth or the universe is in conflict with a Catholic interpretation of the Bible or any of the articles of the Catholic Faith.

Yet, the reality of the situation is that there are a fair number of Catholics in 2020 who shudder at hearing about the Big Bang Theory or Darwinian evolution. If pre-Vatican II teaching is open, at least, to these theories being proposed, why are such Catholics so afraid?

The fear of naturalism

I think that the answer to this question can be found in I, q.2, a.3. That is perhaps the most famous article of the Summa Theologica, the one where St. Thomas asks if God exists. As usual, he provides objections to his own thesis and it turns out that the two objections found in that article are the only two atheist arguments that have any real bite to them.

The first objection is about the problem of evil and does not concern us here. The second objection goes like this:

It is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore, there is no need to suppose God's existence.

The upshot of this argument is that we don’t need God to explain anything. Nature is self-explanatory. In other words, when we investigate nature, we are able to find a sufficient explanation for it completely within itself. There is no need for the “God hypothesis”, because there is nothing for God to explain.

Now, some Catholics seem to think that the objection is true. They seem to believe that when natural causes are used to explain natural effects, God becomes useless. They seem to think that natural explanations of phenomena, using secondary causes, somehow eliminate the explanatory territory that belongs to the first cause.

Whenever this happens, that is, whenever a believer comes to think that natural explanations are in competition with metaphysical explanations, that natural causes are capable of accomplishing what is accomplished by the supreme, transcendent cause, then he necessarily sees science as an enemy of faith and tries to head off science at the explanatory pass with a theological shutdown.

Now, the Big Bang Theory and Darwinian evolution attempt to give naturalistic explanations of the physical and biological realms.

The Big Bang Theory holds that the universe, with time and space came into existence 13.7 billion years ago, that it has been expanding ever since, and that a very, very fine-tuned configuration of the universe’s physical constants have resulted in the formation of the billions of galaxies and stars in our night sky.

Darwinian evolution holds that lifeforms competing for food and other resources undergo random mutations in that competition, some of which are advantageous. Then, nature “selects” those lifeforms that have advantageous mutations to survive, while it eliminates the lifeforms that have deleterious mutations. This, in time, results in two things: one is the diversification of biological form—the advent of new plants and animals; the other is the evolution or progressive improvement of plants and animals.

Just for the record—and this is explicitly in The Realist Guide to Religion and Science—I find the scientific arguments for the Big Bang Theory to be quite compelling, while I find the scientific arguments for Darwinian evolution to be completely uncompelling, at least for anything more than trivial changes in plants and animals.

ut what I would like to point out here is that some Catholics would believe that the Big Bang Theory and Darwinian evolution are not primarily scientific questions but are rather theological questions. And the reason that they believe this is that they think that scientific explanations are in competition with metaphysical or theological explanations. For them, if the Big Bang Theory is true, then God is not needed to explain physical phenomena, and if Darwinian evolution is true, then God is not needed to explain biological phenomena.

That is why they attack those scientific theories as being godless and insist that Genesis 1 must be interpreted in a strictly literal sense. They save God and defeat science by their interpretation of the Bible.

Fear not

Their fear, however, is groundless. The reason for this is that all material things have need of God to explain two things that are not even considered by science: why those material things exist at all and why they operate according to certain laws.

That is how St. Thomas answers the objection:

Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle.

There must be a metaphysical first cause for anything that is limited in its existence. But everything in the universe is limited in existence. Therefore, everything in the universe has God as its first cause. Therefore, it is impossible that any scientific naturalistic explanation of the way that things move or the way that things change can remove the need for a first cause. Therefore, there is no need for Catholics to worry that faith is being attacked—and the pre-Vatican II Catholic world did not worry—when scientists bring forward naturalistic explanations for the becoming of limited creatures. Those explanations will never, ever account for the being of limited creatures, as a First Cause alone can account for the being of contingent existences.

Moreover, whatever science finds out about the physical or biological world is going to reveal, to a greater degree, the intricate design that God has placed into our world, by His power as first cause. Naturalistic explanations, by definition, are going to showcase the laws that God has established for our world and the careful planning that He put into it.

The reason for this is that scientists have to give explanations for phenomena and explanations always seek to provide regular, ordered causes behind what we observe. But the only one who could establish the regular, ordered causation is the one who established the creatures of the material universe in their very being, namely God.

The Big Bang Theory, for instance, demands a choreography for the development of our universe that is utterly astonishing and which human minds could never have anticipated. Because it is a scientific theory, it does not touch metaphysics, which considers God’s direct causal activity in the order of being. But it does provide a clearer pointer to metaphysics because it makes all the more manifest that every single entity in the universe has been designed by one Being who has masterfully coordinated them all. We have far more reason to believe that an all-wise, all-good Creator has ordered the universe when we understand its fine-tuning that we would if we set science aside and could only have recourse to metaphysics or theology.

Conclusion

What is ironic in all of this is that the real danger to believers is not scientific discovery, but scientism, the idea that science is the only discipline of thought in which humans can attain certainty. It is the scientists who are also scientistic who are also atheistic. They have reduced all explanations to purely material explanations, excluding metaphysical and theological explanations by a simple fiat of their own wills.

This is ironic because believers who fear that scientific explanations are in competition with metaphysical and theological explanations can only possess such a fear if they themselves have fallen into scientism, at least in some degree. They do not consider, with St. Thomas, that all created things need a metaphysical explanation as well as a scientific explanation. As such, when scientific explanations become more complete and more compelling, they believe that reason is no longer able to prove the existence of God. This leads them to rush to theology and find an interpretation for the Bible which they can make authoritative over science, beating it into submission. But this is completely unnecessary, very dangerous, and contrary to the mind of the Church, as I hope this article has shown.

Thoughts on the Boer Republics (and Their Consequences)

I totally disagree with MM on this one. The ultimate consequence of the Boer Republics was the fall of South Africa to communism. As I wrote to Prime Minister Vorster in the 1970s, it is impossible to fight the Revolution when one is firmly wedded to the Revolution in one's ideology as the Boer Republics (and later, the Republic of South Africa) were. The fall to communism was inevitable from the day the first Boer Republic was declared.

From The Mad Monarchist (16 July 2016)

I have, from time to time, been asked about my opinion on the Boer Republics and/or the Boer War which saw them fall to the forces of the British Empire. It is a subject I have mixed feelings about considering that I have a great deal of sympathy for both sides of the British-Boer divide. The fact of my own contrariness also plays a part as, during the Boer War, the vast majority of world opinion was on the side of the struggling, little Boer republics and very much against the big, bad British Empire that was at its peak of Victorian splendor and I get very nervous whenever I find myself in agreement with popular opinion. I also dislike the sort of envy-driven hatred that manifests itself against any country or people when they reach the pinnacle of success. It happened to Spain, in happened to Britain more than once, it happened to Germany in the build-up to World War I and it has been happening to the United States and I detest each and every instance of it. The British Empire is dear to my heart and, despite popular opinion today, was inarguably a force for good in the world taken as a whole. However, even Anglophile that I am, I cannot deny that there were occasions in which the British Empire behaved badly as is the case with any country or any people in the world from time to time.

The British Empire had a record of success in Africa that would be difficult to surpass and, again despite what modern detractors would say, it was generally more humane than otherwise. The African lands touched by the British Empire benefited greatly from it with the forces of the British Empire wiping out slavery, introducing modern medicine, agriculture, education and government and they tended to work with traditional native leaders whenever possible. However, no person and no people are totally immune from error and misdeeds and just as the British acted benevolently in India in eradicating certain barbaric practices, the British also acted quite badly such as in forcing opium on the Chinese. The British Empire was a force for good in suppressing the slave trade and yet, in Africa itself there was also instances of Britain acting in a less than altruistic way. The Boer War itself, I think, shows both negative and positive aspects of the character of the British Empire. Greed often seemed to be the driving force behind the start of the conflict and British actions in fighting the war were, sometimes inadvertently though few today would admit it, quite cruel. And yet, the conquered Boer republics were taken into the British Empire and became even more successful still and, after the conflict, the British were generously magnanimous toward their former foes.

For those who complain that I never have anything good to say about any republics, ever (even my own, which is certainly not true), take note that I have no fundamental objection to the Boer republics and moreover that I think the Boer republics had much to recommend them. The Boers were a rough-hewn, rugged, frontier type of people who were excellent horsemen, crack shots with a rifle and devoutly religious -all of which are qualities to admire in my book. Unlike the republics in places such as France or Russia or China, I have no problem with the creation of the Boer republics because of the nature of their birth. They were not born out of any sort of radical, revolutionary upheaval. If France or Russia represent the extreme left in the birth of republics, the United States would be much more to the right but the Boer republics would be even further to the right still. To explain, and for the benefit of those unfamiliar with the story, a brief summary of how the Boer republics came to be is probably in order.

The Dutch arrive on the Cape

Before the British ever arrived in the area, the Cape of Good Hope region of southern Africa was a Dutch colony, part of the very businesslike empire of the United Provinces of the Netherlands. However, then the French Revolution broke out, the French invaded the Netherlands, the Prince of Orange was overthrown and a French puppet state called the Batavian Republic was erected. This meant the ruin of Dutch trade and the loss of most of the Dutch empire with the British swooping in and, after a brief battle, seizing control of the Cape for the British Crown. As many of the locals, mostly Dutch but including some other peoples in the mix, did not desire to live under British rule, they packed up their wagons and left British territory to head deeper into the interior of Africa (the famous “Great Trek”). It was these people who finally established what eventually became known as the Boer republics.

The British became more established in the region and the Boers lived in peace beside them, mostly as farmers and ranchers. They lived simple lives but were accustomed to the hardships of frontier life and were content. However, things began to change when it was found that the Boer republics sat on top of extremely lucrative mineral deposits. They were quite literally ‘sitting on a gold mine’ (and a number of diamond mines too). This, of course, attracted more and more British settlers who moved into Boer territory and that, of course, began to arouse the opposition of the Boers. They began to enact laws to curtail the flow of the British into their territory and the influence they had. That was only natural. It was also then, only natural, for the British to object to their rights being restricted and the British Empire, also not surprisingly, took up the cause of their fellow countrymen against the Boer republics and soon this led to the outbreak of war. Looking back at the overall situation there are few historians who would try to deny that the bottom line was simply this: the Boers had control of vast riches that the British wanted for themselves and they were prepared to fight and conquer the Boer republics in order to obtain control of these mineral deposits. Would any other power, similarly placed, have done otherwise? Probably not. Still, it was hardly Britain’s finest hour.

Boer President Paul Kruger

The world was amazed though by how tenacious the Boers proved to be when confronting the greatest empire in the history of the world. The war, or actually “wars” were long and bitter struggles with the Boers putting up one Hell of a fight. They were not professional soldiers but their way of life had made them a tough and tenacious people and before it was all over you could say that they made the British earn all the gold under Johannesburg the hard way and the payment for all that wealth was in blood. In fighting the war, which eventually devolved into a guerilla conflict with those Boers who refused to surrender, the British resorted to methods that were brutal but effective. The most notorious strategy was to isolate the Boer commandos (a local term the British adopted for their own special forces later on such was their fighting reputation) from their civilian base of support by ‘concentrating’ the Boer population in guarded camps. So it was that the British invented the “concentration camp”.

Today, the unthinking mob tends to think of a “concentration camp” as a “death camp” thanks to the influence of Nazi Germany on the popular imagination. However, this should not be so and the British certainly did not put Boers into camps in order to systematically exterminate the Afrikaner people. Which is also not to say that these were nice places. They were certainly not and large numbers of civilian men, women and children died in these camps from disease, malnutrition and poor sanitation. It was, however, not due to intentional British cruelty but rather to supply shortages, logistical failures and bureaucratic log jam. In fact, it was a British woman who came to the rescue of the imprisoned Boers, raising a public outcry over the conditions in which they were being held and who mounted the effort to relieve their suffering through much more efficient private, charitable channels. Obviously, if the British were a cruel and heartless people, no one would have cared about the concentration camps, there would have been no public outcry and no massive effort to put a stop to it. The British also proved themselves to be gracious victors when the brutal bloodletting was over. Rather than rule the Afrikaners as a conquered people, the British made them partners in the new colonial enterprise that became South Africa and, as a result, many of the men who had fought the hardest against the British became ardent supporters of the British Empire, even taking up arms again to defend it in World War I.

Louis Botha, Boer leader

So, for me, though I am a great admirer of the British Empire, I also see much to admire in the Boer republics, I am not unsympathetic to them and, as republics go, they were acceptable in my book. The important point, for me at least, is that they were foundationally legitimate republics rather than illegitimate revolutionary republics. The Boer republics were, if you like, a ‘creatio ex nihilo’ which did not detract from any existing, established authority to which they should have held allegiance. At the time they were severed from their own, original, mother-country, that (republican) state had been deprived of its own legitimate government. The transfer of territory to the British was not applauded by the Boers but they did nothing to oppose it, preferring to move inland and carve out their own country from the wilderness. The first French Republic, by contrast, was plainly illegitimate but the Boer republics were clearly not and so I have no fundamental problem with them in their origins nor do I know of anything objectionable about their operation when they existed. As such regimes go, they were okay in my book.

Battle of Blood River

There was, it must be mentioned, one aspect to the Boer republics which attracts the most criticism today, given modern, liberal, western sentiments and that was their attitude toward the Black population. I think this deserves to be mentioned, not simply for the sake of full disclosure, but to show that the British Empire was not only hardly as terrible as it is often portrayed but that it acted in a way in which modern-day liberals would have demanded and yet has absolutely nothing to show for such benevolence. First of all, the idea that the Boers should receive no sympathy because, ‘the British stole land from the Boers which the Boers had stolen from the Africans’ is a false, simplistic notion based on current fashionable opinion and not the actual facts. The Boers who made the “Great Trek” came as settlers, not conquerors. They obtained land by peaceful purchase, some Boer families still having the records of such sales from the Black Africans of the time, but most of the land was unoccupied due to the previous wars of conquest by the Zulus who had annihilated much of the previous Black population of the region. There were of course, inevitably going to be clashes, such as the famous Battle of Blood River, by which the Boers fought hard and paid a heavy price for the land they settled but the idea that the whole enterprise was some massive, armed heist is simply not true. The Boers did, however, have a very different attitude toward race in contrast to the British.

The British had long abolished the slave trade and expended a great deal in suppressing it, had abolished slavery long before across the British Empire and even in Victorian times, while certainly not possessing the thinking about race that modern Britons do, tended to look on racism as something terribly uncivilized at the very least. The Boers, on the other hand, took a more old-fashioned and Biblical view of race. They outlawed slavery too though some observers felt that was more in name rather than fact and they certainly viewed Blacks as a people to be kept apart from themselves, people who were different and to be treated differently. Black Africans could not become citizens in the Boer republics, they had fewer rights and freedoms and all the rest of it (any non-Boers and anyone not Protestant also faced degrees of discrimination as well). British society tended to look down on how Blacks were treated in the Boer republics and the inferior position of the Black Africans in the Boer republics was one of the ways that British public opinion was turned in favor of military action against them though it could hardly be argued that this was ever the primary reason for the war. Nonetheless, that was an aspect which enemies of the British Empire today tend to overlook. The vast majority of Black Africans supported the British because the British offered them more rights and more equal treatment than the Boers.

This, of course, eventually culminated in the collapse of the British Empire in Africa as the British government supported granting the franchise to Blacks, effectively handing them total control over South Africa (and other colonies) from the white minority. This led to an ugly stand-off with Rhodesia and British participation in international boycotts against apartheid South Africa, forever alienating the white populations of these countries. Critics of the British Empire today willfully ignore the fact that in South Africa, and other Black-majority countries across the continent, the British government took the side of the Black Africans against the White Africans, their own kith & kin many of them, something unprecedented in the history of all peoples all around the world. This is a fact, yet, from a monarchist perspective, one is forced to conclude that did nothing at all to benefit the Crown, British influence or even goodwill towards the UK.

By taking the side of the Black Africans, another race against those of their own blood in South Africa, the Boers and other White Africans tended to view the British as race-traitors, the people who sold out their own kind and it is easy to find people still today who have never forgiven the British for the part they played in the eradication of the White population in South Africa. The Crown, as usual, does not escape such criticism due to the way people view the monarch as the pinnacle and representation of all British people, society and government. However, while that was to be expected, the actions of Britain have obviously not immunized the British from accusations of racism and upon attaining political power, the Blacks of South Africa did not rush to restore the monarchy and become a Commonwealth Realm again. No, as we all know, the republican form of government was one thing about apartheid South Africa that the new regime wished to retain. Some do still think well of the British in South Africa, but it is not something that can be expressed openly without a severe backlash, even if you are a prominent African chief. And, today, Red China has far more influence in South Africa than Great Britain does. Taken altogether, it is simply a fact that neither Britain nor the British monarchy gained anything tangible nor even in terms of much goodwill and gratitude from its history of pro-Black policies in Africa.

Field Marshal Jan Christiaan Smuts

No one figure better represents the change in attitude towards the British monarchy on the part of Boers than the great Prime Minister and Field Marshal Jan Christiaan Smuts. He fought against the British in the Second Boer War, yet later became pro-British and a staunch monarchist after it was over. When some Boers, during World War I, allied with Germany and tried to instigate a rebellion, Smuts and the loyal Boers suppressed them on their own. He was a major military leader in World War I on the side of the British Empire in Africa and was again one of the most prominent leaders on the Allied side in World War II, fighting for the British Empire against the Axis powers (he was even the favored candidate to become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom if something were to happen to Mr. Churchill). He also supported racial segregation in South Africa and was very popular but later White South Africans came to view him less favorably as Britain took action against the racial policies of the country. When Black rule came to South Africa, Smuts fared no better as was seen in 1994 when the airport in Johannesburg, named in his honor, was renamed to the ‘Johannesburg International Airport’ and in 2006 was renamed again in honor of a prominent Black politician of the African National Congress. The Boers had fought fiercely against the British Empire but most later came to accept it and rose to prominence in South Africa. Many of them fought for the British Empire in World War I and World War II yet they reverted to republicanism due to British opposition to their racial policies and today one would be hard pressed to find a Boer in South Africa with much regard for Britain or the British monarchy. Thus did British opposition to apartheid alienate the Boers while still not garnering enough support among the Black population to restore the monarchy in a post-apartheid South Africa.