“Liberals never give battle on solid ground; they know too well that in a discussion of principles they must meet with irretrievable defeat. Liberalism prefers tactics of recrimination and, under the sting of a just flagellation, whiningly accuse Christians of lack of charity in their polemics.” – Felix Sarda y Salvany

In principle, argument can have an extremely serene and cordial character, so that while fully keeping the content of an argument, it has the amenable appearance of dialogue in the strict sense. Argument can also become very heated emotionally, and in this case is called “polemics”. Because of its particular vehemence, polemics generally has a boisterous, noisy character and easily falls into personal attack. Daphne Caruana Galizia’s dull and wordy blustering entitled “The obsessions that take over their lives” is an example of the latter (TMIS, 4 June).

True to form, her article had to include petty personal references. I must confess that I would have worried had Caruana Galizia refrained from penning banalities, snide personal remarks and sheer fantasy. I needn’t worry however; her latest piece only served to confirm that her delirium is only matched by her manifest inability to oppose thesis for thesis and argument for argument.

To avoid the charge of selective quotation, I have reproduced in full that part of her article – dated 4 June – that directly concerns me, together with some observations.

“Philip Beattie’s article last week is a perfect example of how easy some people find it to separate the institution of the Catholic Church from the Christian spirit.” The lady has lost the plot; no such attempt was made, unless one embraces Caruana Galizia’s sociological “Christian spirit”, totally devoid of defined dogmas and objective morality. In any case, it’s a bit rich for someone to talk about “the Christian spirit” when Caruana Galizia continuously resorts to untruths and personal invective in lieu of reasoned argument. Small wonder that four out of the eight letters published by the editor of this newspaper last week chastised her over a previous article loaded with spiteful personal attacks against one Arlette Baldacchino. Those who haven’t read this particular journalistic “opus” entitled “What’s a nice girl like you doing there?” are in for a treat, even by Caruana Galizia’s own abject standards.

The tirade proceeds: “This founding member of the Alleanza Nazzjonali Repubblikana went on and on with typical turgidity about the various rules and regulations of the Catholic Church, and how these fit in with his great vision for a return to the Malta of the past (sorry, Philip, but if we had liked the past so much, we would have kept it and not changed it).” Well she got the name of the ANR right at the second attempt; that’s something I suppose. I re-read my article to see if I mentioned a single Church “rule” or “regulation” and, surprise surprise, none surfaced. I can’t, for the life of me, fathom where she got the bit about “his (my) great vision for a return to the Malta of the past”. Yet given that Daphne Caruana Galizia has an extraordinary capacity to shamelessly adulterate and distort what people say, then it all became clear. The customary and monotonous “I’m sorry” popped up again; I believe it’s the third time she used this expression – for which she has a penchant – in as many articles. Be as sorry as you like, dear lady, its no skin off my nose.

The lady continues: “He thinks I am a dangerous liberal whose views threaten his dream of a Malta based on the values of the 1950s, when neither of us was born, and when women stayed home, raised 10 kids, lived off handouts from their husbands, Mass was in Latin and the Curia dominated every corner of life, even the bedroom.” I don’t think she is a dangerous liberal at all. Her liberal sermonising is ridiculous, shallow and rather silly, but certainly not dangerous. Anyone unaccustomed to making careful assessments of words and behaviour and who is unwilling or unable to engage in lucid and efficient polemics can hardly be qualified as “dangerous”. What’s so dangerous about a sweeping generalization in which Caruana Galizia relegates a decade of Maltese post-war social, economic and liturgical history to the dustbin?

This next part of her article truly displays great profundity of thought: “The first thing that occurred to me on reading it – with at least five coffee breaks, because it was so boring and badly written – was the spectacular irony of it all. There he is, ranting on about family and tradition. Meanwhile we are the same age and come from the same neighbourhood, but while he has stayed determinedly single and childless into his 40s (how dangerously liberal eh?), I am the one who took the traditional route by marrying at 20, raising a family of children, and continuing to live with their father 21 years down the road. It’s almost enough to make me laugh.” Five coffee breaks? This speaks volumes about Caruana Galizia’s mental powers of absorption and concentration. My ailing father read the piece attentively in 10 minutes flat. Yet despite, or possibly because of the caffeine overdose, she still contrived to misrepresent what I wrote, contending that I “ranted on” about “family” and “tradition”. It pains me to disappoint her, but nowhere in my article did I make the faintest reference to either “tradition” or “family”.

But let us, argumentandi gratia assume that I did. Wherein lies the irony? Are those who haven’t got married proscribed from believing in traditional family values? If Caruana Galizia chose to take the “traditional route”, I’m very happy for her. How she concluded that I remained “determinedly” single is anybody’s guess, although I’m touched by her solicitude. Maybe she has compiled a dossier about my social life, who knows? Very possibly, seeing as Caruana Galizia tends to publicly make everybody else’s business her own. Her hair would probably stand on end if she listened to Catholic Conservative Roberto Formigoni, president of Italy’s Lombardy Region and former vice-president of the European Parliament as he “rants on about tradition and family”. Alas this gentleman is also “single and childless” and well into his 60s. Admittedly however, Mr Formigoni did not come from “the same neighbourhood” like Caruana Galizia and me. Additionally, one can only surmise what she would make of one Achille Ratti (not to mention the late Karol Woytyla), who remained “determinedly single and childless” and who, at the age of 73, penned a letter (Casti Connubii) addressed to the Christian world dealing with marriage in 1930. The reading of this encyclical letter would do Mrs Caruana Galizia a power of good.

Those like her who espouse the notion “ that Malta needs the immediate introduction of divorce legislation” are referred to therein as “the advocates of neo-paganism” who hold “reckless opinions”. It’s entirely possible that these affirmations may not quite fit in with “the Christian spirit” as she understands it. Yet on the question of divorce, it is Caruana Galizia who is anachronistic and who wishes to turn the clock back not I: divorce is nothing but rubbish from pagan times. What is new about divorce, which was so widespread in the ancient world? And why is the proponent of divorce regarded as modern while the defender of indissoluble marriage is considered outdated?

Her last sentence in my regard merits some comment: “I am Philip Beattie’s ideal woman – or at least I would be if only I knew my place”. I beg to differ. It takes more than someone going down the traditional route in order to render her “ideal” in any sane individual’s eyes. Still, a little less personal invective, and a little more reasoning and objectivity would certainly elevate the dear lady in my estimation.

The errors that underpin Daphne Caruana Galizia’s writings are the fruit of her liberalism, a liberalism that in the intellectual order generally translates into licence in the moral order. And let it be remembered that disorder in the intellect begets disorder in the heart and vice-versa. So why waste time maintaining a polemic with adversaries as unworthy as Caruana Galizia and her ilk? Let it suffice to disdainfully look upon their unconvincing twaddle and continue along one’s path. “Non ragionam di lor, ma guarda e passa” (La Divina Commedia, Inferno, Canto III, v.51). Thus did Virgil counsel Dante. As Dante followed that counsel, I shall do likewise.