The fact that they think they should have some kind of right to influence our lives should be reason enough to question their every motive. Instead this country laps up their every word.

[Daphne – Why?]

The Curia has held him to account, which is a good thing and needed in our culture. Not many weeks ago after the EU elections, Paul Borg Olivier and the PM himself were asked by people commenting on line whether they would consider resigning for the poor performance. We are not a culture who keeps people accountable for what they say, let alone resign.

[Daphne – Oh, you mean the elves on timesofmalta.com! God knows why you imagine that the prime minister of the party secretary-general should resign because of the result of an EP election, but I’m sure you’ll explain.]

Was it Fr Abela’s ideas that offended, or was it the fact that he expressed them? He was speaking in court, so did the Curia expect him to lie rather than tell the truth as he sees it?

If it’s Fr Abela’s ideas that the Curia finds offensive, why did it accept him sitting on the board in the first place? And once he was there, was he supposed to take instructions on what to say – which would mean his own ideas are immaterial, so why remove him now – or was he supposed to censor himself, acting in opposition to his own conscience and therefore committing a sin he is duty bound to prevent?

Does the Curia seriously find a play more offensive than censoring one of its own, or putting him in the morally undesirable position of acting against his own beliefs?

Somehow, I don’t think we’ll be hearing the Curia’s answers any time soon.

I see the heavy hand of Fr Anton Gouder in this. The Archbishop made a very bad mistake when he gave Gouder so much power.