Having commented online to my letter (The Sunday Times, October 26), and seeing his irrelevant side-issues countered in the same manner, William Flynn now (November 2) has recourse to the printed page, editing his comments in the light of the criticism he faced.

He is very generous, or cavalier, with his attributes to those who do not share his views, and I am not sure under which category I fall. Indeed, I could not care less, but I refute his gratuitous accusation that I was disrespectful to any person by claiming that divorce, in particular divorce on demand, renders marriage a rabta ċoff.

I also object to his twisting my argument about the introduction of divorce in Western Europe being a protest against the Church. Henry VIII was only mentioned as one of those in power who found the introduction of divorce convenient. Nothing that Mr Flynn has written belies what I have said, and his references to illegitimate children, the lineage of a Pope, and the views of Charles V, are just red herrings.

The historical fact relevant in this case is that Henry VIII, having failed to obtain an annulment from the Pope, for whatever reason is also irrelevant, followed the trend in Western Europe and introduced divorce so that he could marry again and again. A classic case of rabta ċoff.

My remark about the philosophical link that exists between divorce, abortion and euthanasia was very explicit, and Mr Flynn's accusation that I was trying to fool anyone is as baseless as the other claims mentioned above.

May I take the opportunity to point out that when divorce was introduced in Italy, following a campaign by the Lega Italiana per il Divorzio led by Loris Fortuna, this same person answered those who congratulated him in parliament by saying "Ed ora per il prossimo passo, l'aborto" (And now for the next step, abortion.) Fortuna also led La Lega Italiana per l'Aborto which had its offices across a corridor from its sister league in favour of divorce.