Page 4, 6th January 1995

6th January 1995
Page 4
Page 4, 6th January 1995 — Sex Education; the row continues...
Close

Report an error

Noticed an error on this page?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it.

Tags

Locations: Birmingham, London

Share


Related articles

Sex Education: Should We Teach It In Our Schools, And How?

Page 4 from 2nd December 1994

Bishop Hits Out On Sex Education Guidelines

Page 3 from 28th October 1994

Bishop Hits Out On Sex Education Guideline Es

Page 4 from 28th October 1994

How Best To Teach Sex In Schools

Page 3 from 18th November 1994

Sex Education Guidelines Issued

Page 1 from 1st July 1994

Sex Education; the row continues...

IN HER LET n l R OF 16 Decem

ber, Margaret Smart, Director of the Catholic Education Service, purports to give us the facts about her sex lessons guide, Education in Sexuality.

Unfortunately, they conflict with the facts given by others who are undoubtedly more qualified.

For instance, Mrs Smart insists the guidelines "set the school's legal obligation firmly in the context of the Church's moral teaching". On the contrary, moral theologian Fr G Woodall says "there is no reference to objective moral norms".

Again when Mrs Smart says it is nonsense to claim "the document is secular", page one of the Archdiocese of Birmingham states specifically that it gives a "standard, secular, relativist approach to sex education and moral education in general".

Mrs Smart tries to tell us the "responsible sex" her guidelines discusses means mature judgement, but everyone, including the children she is guiding, knows it really means using a condom when you are being promiscuous.

An ordinary lay Catholic like Mrs Smart cannot expect us to accept her unsubstantiated "facts" against those supplied by moral theologians, Archbishops etc, especially in a matter as vital as this to our children.

Sandra O'Donnell Tooting, London.




blog comments powered by Disqus