Was somewhat mystified by the contents of a newspaper cutting passed on to me the other day; it was headlined 'A month of tough decisions for PM'. I expected to find toughies like energy rates, wealth creation in a difficult economic environment, job creation in ditto, Malta Environment and Planning Authority and his ownership of the creature, cost of living and inflation, tackling climate change (but don't get me started on this - posted on The Washington Times, last Sunday: 'A report from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado finds that Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007. But didn't we hear from the same centre that the North Pole was set to disappear by now?'), the deficit; but no.

Lawrence Gonzi's tough decisions this month, a month of them, mind you, were all to do with John Dalli's exit from Parliament to Brussels and the European Commission - and whose performance at his hearings before the European Parliament was nothing short of excellent - and how the Prime Minister could face 'an examination, possibly the most difficult one in this term of office'. What to do? How to replace Mr Dalli? Would Louis Galea give up the Speakership and then what? Would Joe Borg be co-opted? These mind-quaking questions were regarded as some form of nemesis for a political leader who has been dealing with tough problems ever since he took over from Eddie Fenech Adami; not least by a mile-long chalk, the transformation of Malta into a fully-fledged EU member with all the difficulties it posed.

It has become a fad among some journalists, including leader-writers, to wallow in gloom and miss out on some pretty sunny landscapes. Thus, the fact that the government's performance in keeping down the rate of unemployment was among the top three out of the 27 EU countries - Germany and Luxembourg being the other two - is accepted without remark, never mind commendation.

Thus, the recognition of the country's excellence as a financial centre, reported in the London Sunday Times, receives hardly a mention, let alone editorial acknowledgement. Thus, Malta's classification as a high quality of life country, pot-holes and all, sixth out of 196 countries analysed by International Living, is greeted with low quality silence.

To say that everything in Malta's garden is rosy would be childishly incorrect; relentlessly to insinuate or dishonestly to hold, in some cases, that Malta is nothing but thorns not only brings some commentators into disrepute. It is, worse, counterproductive at a time when a dose of well-considered optimism is a far better medicine than mouthfuls of pessimism. By all means give the government hell when intercession for damnation is called for, but acknowledge its successes without ifs and buts.

Gonzi is not above criticism and he is the first to acknowledge this, but he is not below a great deal of praise either. All this fuss about an appointment to the Cabinet as if this were some Gordian knot to be untied and he, congenitally incapable of unloosening it, points at a media that have lost their sense of the truly relevant.

He remains a leader with his eyes focused on the future, his Vision 2015; aware of the dangers lurking in the present and serene in the knowledge that there is no alternative, except in details, to the route mapped out for this legislature by his party's electoral manifesto. This may dismay, God knows why, a few of his backbenchers; so perhaps he should have a little word with each one of them to place any chagrin in the context of his government's broader strategy. He could tell them he understands the preoccupations of constituents in this or that district and that the government will, within the restraints placed on it by finance and priorities, deal with them. And then demand they put their shoulders to the wheel - to make Malta's world, challenging as it is, go round.

What's in a word?

Oh, dear. Fr Joe Borg, a friend of more than 30 years standing, does not think "a Catholic can be conservative". As this stands, minus a definition of the word conservative, it means less than nothing. As it fails to stand at all, the assertion falls flat on its face.

Having made such an unqualified declaration, Borg went on: "As a Catholic you accept God's loving invitation and you start a relationship with him. God is always new and this relationship with Him implies that you discover new things. God is a feast. Catholicism is about the celebration of this feast. Catholicism is about being creative, not being conservative..."

This might all be very well but it might not be all very good. He is making the same predication but we are still without his definition for the c-word. Some use this to sneer at it, which reflects on the users. Some take it to mean fundamentalist when it is nothing of the sort, some others even more erroneously mix up the latter with orthodoxy, which reflects even more badly on whoever does this. Does Borg mean orthodox when he uses the obviously derogative term conservative? And if he is, can a Catholic can be heterodox?

My definition of a conservative is one who wishes to conserve, in this context, the truths proclaimed in the Nicene creed; to conserve what has been handed down by tradition for well-nigh 20 centuries, 17 if you kick off with Constantine; to conserve, acknowledge and live as best one can the teachings of the Church as these are formulated while fully accepting the development of doctrine - not any development, not any doctrine; as one who does not go for fads and fashions simply because it is faddish and fashionable to do so - and wrong; as one who understands the need to discern the signs of the times without allowing that discernment to flout the wisdom of the Church, or to flaunt teachings that go directly against what the Church holds to be true.

I cannot see for a blink that this prevents a conservative from accepting God's loving invitation to build an authentic relationship with Him. Nor for the same twinkle of a blink-time can I fathom why being a conservative prevents one from being creative. This is as absurd as saying that a conservative cannot enjoy ice-cream.

We have been fortunate to have had, during the past 130 years, a succession of great Popes (possibly no other comparable period in the history of the Church has produced a better, continuous series of their species) from Leo XIII to Benedict XV, Pius XII to Popes John XXIII and Paul VI, never mind John Paul II, to Benedict XVI. These were all essentially conservative in the proper sense of that word. Who would be rash enough to say that they were not also intellectually creative, God-loving and open to His love, and above all, God-serving?

I can think of no more conservative a figure than Blessed Mother Teresa; who more than her during the last century exemplified a loving acceptance of God? Who more creative in the work she took on? Many of the saints I can think of were conservative by my definition of that word, from Ambrose to Augustine, Anselm to Jean-Baptiste Vianney, Catherine of Siena to Joan of Arc to Therese of Lisieux; and all of them creative. How more creative can you get, as a young woman, than to persuade your Dauphin, in a man's world, to lead his soldiers against the perfidious army of England?

A last remark: some weeks ago, the religion page of this newspaper cited as an 'arch-conservative' the Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput. If a Catholic cannot be conservative, into which bewildered, perplexing wilderness can this outspoken and dynamic archbishop not be cast?

Accountability

During a recent edition of the Xarabank television programme, a panel discussed whether a prisoner suffering from terminal illness should be sent home for his remaining time, or continue to serve his sentence. My intention is not to enter into the merits or demerits of that question but to raise a different point.

I have it from an irreproachable witness, who confirmed it with an equally impeccable source, that a doctor on the panel argued in favour of his release. He is perfectly entitled to make such a case. What he is not licensed to air, what the ethics of his profession forbids him to communicate, were the details of the patient's illness unless he had the patient's consent. No claim was made to any such assent on the part of the patient.

To the best of my knowledge the Medical Council did not seem bothered by this breach of ethics; nor was PBS - or the Broadcasting Authority - unduly concerned; and whoever has the task of enforcing the Data Protection Act, failed to react, let alone enforce. If this is the case, it is an incomprehensible lapse on the part of each of these entities.