Your regular columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia’s self-confidence is now becoming pathologically exaggerated to the extent that she is arrogantly projecting herself as an infallible opinion oracle.
In her recent rambling critiques of the Catholic Church she projects herself as being more infallible than the Pope. The latter rarely uses his much-misunderstood prerogative but she, Daphne, pontificates continuously on everything and everybody. She goes on and on like a fishwife in the market place, underestimating her readers’ intelligence by overstating her case and shooting messengers without civilly and sympathetically considering their messages.
Recently, she has come out as an energetic anti-Catholic agent, full of disdain and venom against the Vatican and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. She stated that she threw away the Catechism in her younger days (no doubt referring to that very small primer booklet she used at school), and that explains her under-developed religious education and culpable ignorance of the Catholic faith. She is obviously unaware of the current Catechism of the Catholic Church that covers 691 pages of inspired wisdom written by seasoned academicians who would, given the chance, deflate Daphne’s inflated ego to size, remove her blinkers and educate her in the universal religious truths that her untutored mind has sidelined.
Like “the pot calling the kettle black”, Daphne does not hesitate to demean her critics by calling them intellectually under-developed people indulging in primitive thinking. What intellectual snobbery! She wants to teach those she considers as poor ignorant religious people to regress into her primitive pagan attitude of “I do what I like and its nobody’s business what I do, so long as I don’t break man-made laws and do not offend common decency”. May I ask her if offensive newspaper articles demonstrate her idea of common decency? One of the current problems of mankind is that common decency (basically God-inspired) has been corrupted and is being progressively eroded by libertine philosophies like hers finding their way into secular laws.
Who does Daphne Caruana Galizia think she is to go on insulting the majority of the Maltese people in their own country by depicting their religious beliefs as mediaeval poppycock? Why does she attack the Catholic faith, which is based on love of God and neighbour – a concept that, if adopted universally, would ensure peace in the world? Is it because she knows that Catholics believe in turning the other cheek when one is slapped? Why is she attempting to mislead and scandalise susceptible minds by pouring scorn on Catholicism? Would she dare attack similarly any other religion, knowing that likely retaliation could put her at great physical risk? What is she gaining from this apart from self-aggrandisement in the eyes of the gullible? Finally, I ask, what is Daphne’s agenda?
John B. Pace
Victoria