In Norway, Denmark, Finland and Sweden, major Internet service providers have agreed to restrict access to sites listed by police. While this list of forbidden URLs is only supposed to contain addresses of known child pornography sites, its contents are secret. Some governments, such as those of Cuba, Iran and the People's Republic of China, restrict what people in their countries can access on the Internet, especially political and religious content. Do you agree with these control measures?

Let me begin by recalling a decision taken by the Arches Court of Canterbury, which is a tribunal of the Anglican Church, last October. The priest in charge of a parish church had refused to permit the installation of a mobile phone base station and antennae in the church tower. His reason was that the facility would almost certainly be used by some to gain easier access to pornography.

The court recognised that the danger existed and expressed particular concern about children. However, it noted two conditions in particular. First, that Web crawlers and filtering techniques were in use to ensure that unsuitable content was not available for those under 18, and those over 18 had to prove their age in order to have the blocks on their mobile telephone lifted.

Second, there was an Internet Watch Foundation in the UK. It was a regulatory body that worked in partnership with government departments and had a good record of assisting law enforcement in respect of illegal sites. In the circumstances the ecclesiastical judges felt that the benefits accruing from easier access to information made possible by the mobile telephony facility, was greater than the somewhat wider scope provided to evil-doers through its accommodation in the church tower. They overruled the decision of the local parish priest.

I am quoting this case for several reasons. First, it shows that precautionary action, especially to protect children not just from pornography but also from other brutalising influences including some forms of teleshopping aimed at minors, have almost universally been taken in the civilised world. But in Malta, in spite of some action, that began to be taken by the ministry for IT and Investment as far back as May 2003, we are now lagging behind partly because service providers here do not seem to have the same foresight that makes legislation unnecessary in the Scandinavian countries you referred to.

Secondly, the Anglican Tribunal brought out that in such cases, the Christian approach has to be a balancing act. The general benefit should not be sacrificed to prevent abuse by some. The main thrust of Christians should be to improve standards of sexual morality in society as a whole, especially through education.

Thirdly, while it is right to protect children, the restriction of access to the Internet - as has for instance been notably agreed between China and Google - is not only unjustifiable, but also ultimately bound to be unsuccessful.

"Since announcing the Good News to people formed by a media culture requires taking carefully into account the special characteristics of the media themselves, the Church now needs to understand the Internet. This is necessary in order to communicate effectively with people - especially young people - who are steeped in the experience of this new technology, and also in order to use it well." (Archbishop John P. Foley, President of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Vatican City, February 22, 2002, Feast of the Chair of St Peter the Apostle). How is this being realised under Pope Benedict XVI's religious guidance?

I do not know how much the Church's approach to the media is in fact being guided by Pope Benedict. Even his readoption of very Baroque vestments in addition to his Teutonic accents have provoked unfavourable comparison with his predecessor in terms of youth appeal, including the suggestion that he should consult Franco Zeffirelli, the film director who is a fan of the current Pope, to advise him on costume design. The sources of information made accessible over the Internet, and the forums or chat shows that focus on controversial religious themes, are interesting developments and are sometimes quite amusing. For instance, my brother, who lived at Santa Lucia, once did a search on Pius X, the patron saint of his parish, in the hope of finding material for the local community bulletin, but instead he came upon a site, run by some Jesuits among others, campaigning for the Pope's de-canonisation, because they held that the anti-modernist oath that he demanded could only have been inspired by the devil himself.

So the Internet is presenting new challenges to religious authority and control. But the most interesting aspect of Internet religion is the birth and growth of forms of worship on the cutting edge between the virtual and the real.

The efficacy of cyberspace liturgy is actually double-edged. Cyberspace is both striking terror in the hearts of pastors who see it preferred by their flock to flesh and blood participation in a physical church communication, and inspiring enthusiasm among others who regard it as a mystical utopia: the realisation of Christ's prophecy when he told the Samaritan woman that they would worship neither upon the mountain nor in Jerusalem but in 'Spirit and truth.'

Fr Peter Serracino Inglott was talking to Nicole Bugeja