Martin Scicluna in his last article entitled “A free press: A force for good” (TMIS, 14 August) graciously agrees to disagree with me over the role of the Church in the recent referendum on divorce.

However, he fails to stop severely criticising the Church on this and two other issues namely the Church’s position with regard to the sex-abuse victims by clerics and the part played by the Church in achieving freedom of the press in Malta.

With regard to the first of these two matters, his queries have been overtaken by events in the last couple of weeks.

The Church is genuinely contrite and the question of compensation is under consideration.

As to freedom of the press and the Church, Mr Scicluna seems confused.

He declares that we came late to freedom of the press and then goes on to say that this was won over a century ago.

He makes confusion worse by claiming that this was achieved in the face of stiff opposition from the Maltese Church, an exaggerated assertion without historical foundation.

Freedom of the press was first introduced by the British Administration under Governor Sir Henry Bouverie by Ordinance No. IV of 1839.

The Church in Malta and the Vatican had their reservations but did not oppose it.

In fact, the first victim of the accompanying libel law was the English Protestant editor of the paper, The Harlequin, John Richardson.

To come nearer the present, the third paragraph in the Sitt Punti agreement arrived at by Gonzi and Mintoff in 1969 concerns the censorship of films, books, reviews, papers and other published matter, which was to be the sole prerogative of the State.

There is no hint of stiff opposition by the Church to freedom of the press in this historical agreement.

The need for a free responsible press in a modern democracy goes without saying.

It is not only essential but as Mr Scicluna says “a force for good” and progress, a worthy fourth estate as the great Edmund Burke expounded.

The state of play on our own ground is satisfactory on the whole. Further advance is of course possible and desirable. The questionable censorship of modern Maltese literature comes to mind; but that is another matter.

Joseph A Muscat

TA’XBIEX