Sir, I was appalled at the tasteless cartoon depicting Pope Benedict XVI. No newspaper should show such disrespect to a person who is held in high esteem by a large proportion of Christians in the world. To pillory the Pope in this way is totally unacceptable. As to what Pope Benedict said, it would be wiser for people to look at the issues that he was raising in his remarks. It is certainly true that the widespread distribution of condoms can run the risk of greater promiscuity and that the best way to combat the Aids epidemic is by healthcare, education and fidelity in married life. Even if people do not accept the Church’s teaching in this matter, it is a well-known fact that the greatest contribution to health care for those living with Aids in Africa is given by the Catholic Church.

It is difficult to imagine how much more wrong he could be. The fact that a man is "held in high esteem by a large proportion of Christians in the world" is utterly irrelevant to the rights and wrongs of a newspaper's - or anyone else's - right to mock. Robert Mugabe is clearly held in high esteeem by many in Zimbabwe. Does that mean The Times should never mock him? Of course not. 

Indeed, it is precisely the Cardinal's argument that was behind the Satanic Verses events twenty years ago, and which was advanced by the protestors against the Danish cartoons of Mohammed - that because a man or a religion had followers, the rest of us were under some obligation never to offend them.

Is the Cardinal really saying that he sided with those who protested against the cartoons and those who wanted - to put it mildly - The Satanic Verses banned? There  is no other construction which can be placed on his words.

Not only is that astonishing; it is shameful.