In the light of Mgr Charles Vella's controversial interview (The Sunday Times, August 16), I would like to comment on a more recent article of his entitled 'Skomunika ghal min juza l-pillola RU 486' (Excommunication for those who use the RU 486 pill), carried in Lehen is-Sewwa on August 22. Using some principles Mgr Vella himself set in the interview he gave to Herman Grech as a hermeneutical key to his recent article on Lehen, one is able to encounter various inconsistencies in Mgr Vella's thought.

In his Lehen is-Sewwa article Mgr Vella gives an array of facts and figures regarding abortions in Italy in the last three years. In the interview Herman Grech states that "Mgr Vella insists that the Church should avoid quoting certain statistics in a bid to water down alarming marriage breakdowns." This is the first inconsistency of Mgr Vella - he quotes statistics while telling the Church not to do the same.

Mgr Vella in his article says that Archbishop Rino Fisichella's reaction in Corriere della Sera (July 31) to the green light given in Italy to the abortion pill RU 486, was somewhat mild. While Mgr Fisichella acknowledged that the use of the RU 486 is prohibited by the Code of Canon Law as in the case of a surgical abortion, he stopped short of saying that this Church prohibition is on pain of excommunication latae sententiae.

Mgr Fisichella said that he did not wish to make further declarations. Mgr Vella disagreed with this, saying that "we know what the Church teaches". Mgr Vella is right but he should have known that on divorce the Church's teaching is similarly clear and unequivocal.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (paras 2382-2386) affirms that the Church is against divorce and that Jesus Christ himself abrogated the accommodations that had slipped into the Old Law (cf. Mt 19, 7-9) regarding divorce. Moreover divorce is "a grave act against the natural law, a law which possesses a universal appeal". Are not these declarations of the Church clear enough for Mgr Vella?

Mgr Vella is again inconsistent when he states that he does not fear contraceptive vending machines at the University campus if students have a well formed and informed Christian conscience. Firstly, he should know that not all University students are Christians. What about non-Christians? Moreover, if contraception is intrinsically evil, as the Church teaches in Humanae Vitae, is Mgr Vella able to judge whether the conscience of non-Christian students is formed enough to prevail upon a constant peril to body and soul? Is he in a position to conclude whether Christian students are formed enough to withstand the same peril?

If he discovers that there is lack of formation of conscience among students, will he come on campus to stop students from using the vending machines till they have formed and informed their consciences in a Christian way? If, as Mgr Vella rightly seems to fear, there is a lack of formation among youngsters, why should they be tested before they are prepared?

Mgr Vella ends his article by rightly expressing his hope that RU 486 will never be sold legally in Malta. Had he developed the same line of thought coherently, he would have said, as in the case of the vending machines on campus, that the abortive pill would not trouble him if the Maltese would have a conscience formed according to Christian truths and principles.

I only ask Mgr Vella to return to his old good self. Everybody makes mistakes. We only ought to be sorry and apologise if we acknowledge we did so.