Archbishop Scicluna has been prejudicial to Fr David Muscat’s case

Last Friday, 4th Feb. 2022 the compilation of evidence in the case against Abner Aquilina continued. During the sitting, it transpired that this individual truly needs help. He maintains that he is possessed. I share the thought of the Frenchman of Maltese origin Jacques Ellul that there is no type of possession by the devil. But I shall not discuss this point in this article, however, I can relate what happened when Fr David Muscat was arraigned in court.

As is known, Fr David Muscat’s case started being heard on Friday 28th January 2022. I happened to be in Court. Fr David Muscat asked me to accompany him since he wished to submit to the Magistrate some articles I had written as documentation in his case. I accepted and therefore was outside the courtroom where his case was being heard.

I am not going to talk about the case nevertheless outside the courtroom I saw that the Archbishop’s Delegate for the Clergy was also present. As soon as the sitting ended he left. But I do not know – at least I did not see him going up and talking to Fr David Muscat. Until Fr David Muscat entered the Courtroom, Ranier Fsadni and I were nearly all the time next to Fr Muscat giving him our support.

Nevertheless, I would ask: Why did the Archbishop‘s delegate come to court when the Archbishop has personally condemned Fr David Muscat because of a comment he posted? I remind the Archbishop that this story began because of Abner Aquilina who, today we know beyond any doubt, was abused by a journalist when still a minor. We also know that Abner Aquilina is talking that he is being possessed.  

Curiously, on this particular point, the Archbishop’s media never mentioned a thing. Fr David Muscat felt sorry for Abner Aquilina and was the first to state that this man needed help. Now, this is a confirmed fact. And this priest who thought and begged for help for Abner ended up being threatened with being suspended from the priesthood which in the world of priests is known as “sospensione a divinis”.

With all that Archbishop Scicluna ended up declaring – and let’s not forget that he is also a qualified lawyer –  he was perfectly aware that he was being doubly prejudicial to the case against David Muscat. Archbishop Scicluna ended up apologising to the gay community. For me, it was a hasty apology that was only given to pacify the Drachma Parents’ Group and others in the LGBTQI community. With his words, Archbishop preferred to crucify Fr David Muscat and then proceeded to silence him. Hence, Fr David Muscat cannot speak about his case. Thus, Fr David Muscat is appearing to people out there that he has done something wrong because he cannot reply to those attacking him about this narrative.

Moreover, I suspect that the Archbishop’s apology was the cause that the Magistrate commented in the manner he did, during proceedings and before the defence presented its evidence and concluded its arguments.

Facebook already forced Fr David to remove his posts. And we must not forget that it was also Randolph Debattista who asked Fr David Muscat to remove them.  Hence, since Fr David Muscat has been silenced he could not even clarify matters because in so doing he would have been defrocked. For me, this is a terrorizing strategy implemented in order for a priest to be found guilty and certainly would be jailed and fined a large sum of money.

With such a sentence in their hands, the LGBTIQ can write to Rome to have him suspended. The strategy is clear. This case of Fr David Muscat is to be used to create the perception that Abner Aquilina is a victim of religious fundamentalism that brought on this condition of madness.

What Archbishop’s Scicluna stand has demonstrated is that there exists a macabre understanding between the Church and State to shut up a priest who talks about abortion, tax havens, and euthanasia as well as other issues in Christian Doctrine. After all, this is a priest who is not bothered to speak against the present government. The government is happy, so is the Archbishop.

The comic side is that after David Muscat spoke, Government brought out a person from the UK also called David but whose surname is Walliams who ended up making the same point that Fr David Muscat has been talking about that; Malta is a tax haven! I hope that the Archbishop will not also condemn David Walliams!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *