Iwish to refer to the comments made by Mgr Charles Vella in his interview with The Sunday Times on August 16. I write with all due respect since he is my senior in many respects. I shall restrict my comments to the sections concerning family, marriage and divorce.

I am puzzled by a number of statements made by Mgr Vella. This is not because his views differ from mine, or because, in my opinion, some of these statements are not in conformity with the Gospel, but mostly because I perceive a number of contradictions.

At one point he stated, "I keep reading that marriages in Malta will disintegrate if there is divorce, but it didn't happen in Italy". A few paragraphs later, he admits: "In Milan nowadays, there are more civil marriages than religious marriages and more cohabiting couples than families." Isn't his description of the situation in Milan indicative of a disintegration of marriage? Further on, he says "that he opposed cohabitation", which is the prevailing situation in Milan following the introduction of divorce. In the interview, Mgr Vella also explains that "in the first couple of years, the divorce rate (in Italy) rose because there were people waiting for years to get it. But now the figures have levelled out. It's not increasing." Yet he himself contradicts this in his description of the situation in Milan nowadays, decades after the introduction of divorce.

Permit me to quote just one statistic, because statistics show that the rate of divorce in Italy is far from levelling out. Mgr Vella says "It's not increasing", while, on the contrary, statistics prove otherwise. From 1995 to 2005 in Italy, legal separation increased by 57.3 per cent and divorces increased by 74 per cent.

Another confusing statement is: "As a founder of the Cana Movement, he would not like to see divorce introduced, but as a priest and as a human being, he cannot close his eyes..." I cannot understand this self-inflicted separation of roles.

How is it possible to be a founder and not to be human? How can it be possible to disapprove of divorce in his role as founder while at the same time have a different opinion as a human? And is the introduction of divorce just a matter of liking it or not?

At this point, I am not even taking into consideration his role as "the priest" even though Cana Movement is a Catholic organisation.

The matter becomes more complicated when a bit further on he declares: "Divorce legislation doesn't solve the needs of the people." Why, then, did he feel the need to distinguish between the founder, the human and the priest?

Mgr Vella addresses the State saying: "The State has to come to grips with the problem of divorce." In concrete terms, what is he proposing to the State while keeping in mind his statement that "divorce legislation doesn't solve the needs of the people"?

He is against holding a referendum. He is against crusading. His suggestion is to "sit at table and discuss". To whom is he referring when he says "we"? And should the "we" impose the outcome of their discussion on the whole nation"? I am by no means inferring that the results of a referendum would automatically present us with the right solution.

Three paragraphs later, Mgr Vella tells the State "to face it in the tradition of democracy". Again, the obvious question crops up: How? Is not a referendum in the tradition of democracy?

In Mgr Vella's opinion, what qualifies as a "crusade"? Does imparting formation and information constitute a crusade? Mgr Vella himself, in an article in Il-Gens (February 21, 1997, and as published in his book Minn Milan Ghal Malta, 2004) informs us that "in Italy, well prior to the referendum, public opinion was through the media very much influenced in favour of divorce. A media conscience was formed, instead of a Christian ethical conscience that considers marriage as indissoluble".

I would appreciate an evaluation of whether a similar danger exists in our country.

Mgr Vella "asks whether it is justified that children (of cohabiting couples) have no identity". Is he worried about these children, or is he accepting the situation in Milan where cohabitation is prevalent nothwithstanding that divorce legislation has been in force for decades? He says, "it's better for their parents to marry than cohabit". But in actual fact, even with divorce on the statute books, more and more prefer to cohabit, as they do in Milan.

Besides, it is not correct to say that these children have no identity. Basically, the law has always catered for the status of children born outside marriage. As time went by, the legislator granted more and more rights to these children, and indeed there now exists a situation where such children can be legitimised or acknowledged and given extensive rights akin to those of children born within marriage.

It is a pity that the pain and negative long-term effects suffered by children of divorced parents is not even mentioned in the interview.

Mgr Vella expresses another opinion in this way: "Very often their first marriage is a mistake; they want a more stable and happy second marriage." Let us once again put 'the priest' aside and look at this statement from the human point of view. To begin with, such a blanket statement that most first marriages are invalid, is akin to creating social chaos. But, worse than that, social sciences prove that second marriages are less stable than the first. This contradicts Mgr Vella's opinion. Another question that arises is the following: Is Mgr Vella proposing divorce only for a second chance, and no further chances?

"Divorce does not scare me" is the quote used as the heading to Mgr Vella's interview. Later he continues: "If we prepare couples well for marriage, then we shouldn't be afraid." Does it not occur to him that once divorce legislation is introduced (which means therefore that marriage does not remain a lifelong commitment), couples would take their marriage preparation more lightly? This is worrying because of the negative effect it would have on the family and society.

I would like to conclude with another excerpt from the writings of Mgr Vella in the above-mentioned book. In an article dated February 9, 2002, he refers to an address of Pope Paul John II, saying: "The strongest part of the Pope's address was when he said, 'Today we have a diffused mentality, a social custom and civil legislation in favour of divorce.' At this point the Pope lists the moral and social damage that divorce brings upon society. It is 'a fester that influences negatively future generations'. This is a fact and many scholars through their research, found out that divorce brings about negative effects and trauma to the couple, their children and to society itself."

To my bewilderment, I can only say that something, somewhere, somehow is amiss.