As someone who believes in freedom of expression, I have to preface these remarks by saying that the Bishop of Gozo has every right to his opinion and every right to express it. This is not meant to be as patronising as it sounds, it is merely a statement of the obvious.

It was not always so obvious that in this country, you have the right to an opinion or, even more so, the right to express it. I don't wish to rake over old coals, but anyone my age and less, for that matter, will recall the good old days of socialism, when taking to the streets to protest about - for instance - there not being any water in your taps would be a sure-fire route to having some physical nastiness visited on you by the thugs who bolstered Mintoff and KMB's regimes.

You also got quite a bit of psychological nastiness chucked your way, too.

Apologists for those regimes, as well as fully paid-up members of the league of ladies who sneerger, will try to tell us that the same happens now, especially in the psychological stakes, but these silly remarks will be treated with the contempt they deserve.

But to get back to His Grace, as I say, he has every right, and in fact given his position in the Catholic Church's hierarchy, he even has the duty to express his thoughts and opinions, especially on matters of morality.

However, the fact that the Bishop of Gozo occupies such a prominent position makes it equally incumbent on people like me, who have the privilege of platform, to express our own opinion, even if this opinion is not four-square with those of the Catholic Church as expressed by people like the Mgr. Grech.

It seems that His Grace has taken it upon himself to set the agenda for the Church in Malta. I'm not entirely clear on why he thinks he has the right to do this, though apparently, there is a degree of independence enjoyed by the Gozo Curia that facilitates this. Not being completely au fait with canon law, I used to think that an Archbishop outranks a Bishop, but this is not apparently the case.

Since, then, Mgr. Grech is the one who put it on the record that teaching adolescents about contraception is tantamount to abusing them, it is he who will have to take the brunt of my reaction to this astounding statement.

It is astounding on so many levels that I'm not sure where to start.

It shows, for instance, an almost breathtaking insouciance, almost an indifference, to the consideration that the word "abuse" is liable to provoke such an obvious reaction in the context of the abuse that was perpetrated on many adolescents by their spiritual guardians, their priests. By appearing not to care that many will react by saying "abuse? the Church is a fine one to talk about abuse!", he seems to show that he doesn't care about the abuse itself.

I know this is not the case, but that's the perception, and if the Catholic Church doesn't care about the perception many have of it, which often appears to be the case, then again, it is just signalling that it is out of touch with the world.

Which is a peculiar position to take, given that in so many regions, so many priests and nuns are very much in touch with the real world and do so much good in the trenches.

And how, precisely, does teaching about contraception constitute abuse of a young person? Does giving said young person the means to avoid disease and unwanted pregnancy constitute abuse? The Church's reaction is that abstinence gives one hundred percent protection against both, so there, but hey, the rest of us live on Earth, not in Nonsuch.

Oh well, at least we didn't get a dictum about anyone teaching about contraception committing a mortal sin, unlike when it was suggested that anyone who collaborated with bringing in - or administering - a divorce law would be deemed a sinner.

Freedom of expression is all very well, but it has to be expression with responsibility and not blithe disregard for human needs.