Asked about the prospects of an early general election, Prime Minister Robert Abela did not rule it out. He would go for a snap election if parliament is "destabilised" by a change in Opposition leadership, drawing a parallel with the PN's leadership crisis during the Covid-19 pandemic.

At the same time, however, he insisted that he wanted to see through his and the government's mandate.

What should one make of this nonplussed statement?

Undeniably, the prime minister has the constitutional power to trigger an election at will when the political circumstances seem advantageous or to limit losses when the government is facing headwinds, as it seems to be facing at the moment.

Calling an early election might easily generate anger among citizens and therefore affect their decision to vote or to abstain.

It could also have an impact on the vote choice calculus of citizens who decide to turn out in two different ways.

On the one hand, strategic considerations might explain why some voters would react favourably. The incumbent usually calls an election early to maximise its chances of re-election. Therefore, supporters of the governing Labour party might be happy with the decision to call an early election, as they would vote for their preferred party in a context where the incumbent is expected to do well or even win the election.

On the contrary, supporters of the opposition would most likely react negatively, and some may perceive this decision to be undemocratic and an abuse of power, which may lead eligible voters who feel this way to punish the incumbent party.

At the end of the day, calling a snap election might do more harm than good to the country's political stability, and it would be up to the president to make use of her constitutional power to refuse to dissolve parliament.

Robert Abela would do well to have second thoughts on taking a reckless gamble that may have no sign at all of paying off.

                                                         Pope Leo XIV on civil liberties

During a 2012 address to the world synod of bishops, Pope Leo (then Father Robert Prevost) said, "Western mass media is extraordinarily effective in fostering within the general public enormous sympathy for beliefs and practices that are at odds with the Gospel - for example, abortion, homosexual lifestyle, and euthanasia."

This pope blames mass media for fostering so much sympathy for anti-Christian lifestyle choices that when people hear the Christian message, it often inevitably seems ideological and emotionally cruel. He sees the need for the church to adequately respond to the challenges posed by modern mass media, complaining that alternative families comprised of same-sex partners and their adopted children are so benignly and sympathetically portrayed in television programmes and cinema today.

His Holiness further described the homosexual lifestyle and the redefinition of marriage as at odds with the Gospel.

A stern warning indeed!

There is a growing fear among civil liberties advocates that this papacy risks undoing the evolutionary process initiated by the late Pope Francis, appearing, as it does, at odds with the more progressive beliefs held by Pope Francis.

Only time will tell.

                                                                  Priestly celibacy

The question of the Catholic celibate priesthood has become more and more common, first following fear of a shortage of priests and then amid scandals within the priesthood. Allowing priests to marry looks to some as the easiest and most logical fix to what they perceive as broken. But first, we should ask why celibacy is the norm for priests in the Roman rite and bishops in the Eastern church. We need to understand why celibacy is the longstanding tradition of the Church.

Celibacy makes sense: single men are freer to serve their parish, have fewer reasons for holding back in ministry, and avoid favouritism.

But while all these are secondary benefits to a celibate priesthood, none of them are the Church's true reason for upholding her tradition. Rather, in what appears to be a contradiction of terms, the Catholic priest is celibate to be freed for fatherhood.

Priests renounce natural fatherhood to more perfectly image the supernatural fatherhood of God. While God's fatherhood looks different than the natural fatherhood we're familiar with, his role as Father is mysteriously more true and complete than that of fathers who generate natural life. Every other image of fatherhood is a faint echo of the supernatural fatherhood of God.

Priests, who still fall short of God's example, more closely mirror this complete role of the father. Like God the Father, they give of themselves entirely for the sake of a supernatural fatherhood. This is fittingly reflected in the total self-gift of celibacy.

Altering the tradition of priestly celibacy would have unintended consequences. While there is a crisis in the priesthood, it is not one caused by celibacy, but by celibacy lived badly. The problem is unfaithfulness to the vow, not the vow itself.

A recommitment to priestly celibacy can renew the priesthood like no other option.

Many are asking whether there is a path forward for the priesthood and what that path might be. A recommitment to the rich gift of priestly celibacy entrusted to the Church is urgently needed as we work towards meaningful renewal.

"Everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and receive eternal life." -Matthew 19:29.