My innate sense of prudence (in Aquinas's sense of the word) assures me that it would be wise to follow along the paths laid out for me by Fr René Camilleri as he did for some reason in his critique of my interview (March 5). He forbade me with some peremptoriness from using Philosophy (which I take to mean reason, without resort to Revelation) in tackling the moral issues we have at hand, but enjoined me to resort to Tradition instead.

I banished the thought that he was suggesting that Tradition was irrational.

I applied myself very conscientiously to follow the given indication. Unfortunately, the Tradition with which I have been familiar certainly contains other elements besides Philosophy such as methods of prayer, but it is equally certain that Philosophy is the preferred if not the exclusive method used to tackle the issues not resolved directly in Scripture.

It is this Tradition that Pope Benedict described with such clarity in many places such as his Regensburg address.

In the light of this consideration, I admit that I was sorely tempted to treat the message that reached me not as a general warning against Philosophy, that the millennial Tradition of the Church down to the most recent instructions of the Holy See has taught me to cherish, but as a public warning for me personally to shut up on certain topics not deemed by some to have been appropriately tackled by me.

However, I soon abandoned this interpretation. In fact, hot on the heels of the "gag the Philosopher" opening gambit, Fr René went on to ask me two questions. Admittedly, they were couched in a manner that seemed rhetorical but as the implied answers were the contrary of what I hold to be the truth, in fairness to readers, I was not left with what would have been my preferred option of silence.

The first question is: "With regard to marriage and the family, is the present (civil-juridical) situation in Europe not one of total collapse?" My answer is: Quite the contrary! If anything, the problem is excessive legislation, rather than a public legal vacuum. Indeed, my interview was actually provoked by a highly significant endeavour by the European Union to simplify at least some issues of competence.

The second question is: "What is the difference between destroying capriciously and destroying with respect?" The clear implication is that the anticipated answer is: None! On the contrary, I hold that the first kind of destruction is bad, precisely because unwarranted, while the second (for instance, amputation of a limb to save life) may possibly be good.

I am a firm believer in deference to due authority. For this very reason, among others, I am quite unrepentant about seeking to resolve topical moral problems philosophically, in line with normative Church tradition.