I read Emm. C. Spiteri's reply to I. Cassar (December 16) and am quite puzzled by his replies.

Mr Spiteri reaffirms that 'the Bible does not mention divorce, so the Church is right in not accepting it'. While I beg to differ on this point I feel it is best for us to leave the theological aspect out of this. Galileo and Copernicus were both persecuted by the Church because the biblical teaching claimed that the sun rotated round the earth and not vice-versa. Today we know that it was Copernicus and Galileo who were right and not the Church. Therefore, let us stick to material facts please.

Mr Spiteri claims that even though he obtained a divorce it did not mean it was acceptable to him to be divorced. He claims he did it because the Church would not help him and that if he were still in Malta he would have ended up in prison. If I am understanding him correctly divorce was the choice between two evils - a divorce in England or prison in Malta. I therefore deduct that Mr Spiteri used to live in Malta but obtained his divorce from the UK because he went to live there after his marriage broke down.

While Mr Spiteri had what he claimed to be "the choice between two evils", Maltese living in Malta are denied that choice. I agree that the Church does not help one bit.

Are we Maltese who do not have this choice destined to end up in prison? In a certain sense, that is what we end up in - metaphorically speaking.

I also wish to point out that filing for an annulment, apart from involving a good number of years just waiting, does not mean you automatically get your marriage annulled. Most annulment cases are turned down by the Church after the long wait.

An annulment just obtains a change in status. If a couple have by then not reached an agreement on the separation of assets etc, this process still has to be decided by the Maltese courts.

Mr Spiteri also claims that divorce in England has nothing to do with democracy but was introduced because an English monarch wanted to remarry. I once again invite him to leave out the Church of England or any other Church for that matter. Otherwise, we will lose sight of the real issue about the democratic and legal aspect of divorce.

Mr Spiteri cannot deny that Britain (and the rest of the world for that matter) has legislation that gives a person the right to divorce, irrespective of any Church teachings. This is because the UK, like all European countries, is a democratic country. Shamefully, on this issue, Malta is not a democratic country at all.

Mr Spiteri said that in spite of his misgivings he had the choice to take a conscientious decision on his future. We, Maltese living in Malta, are being denied the second chance he availed himself of, for political reasons.

It is a shame that Maltese have to go to foreign courts to obtain a divorce and explain to that court that their government has denied them that choice for political and religious reasons. Without going over the top, I feel this is almost tantamount to political and religious oppression, suffered by Galileo and Copernicus hundreds of years ago.