Sir, - There is a legitimate view that extreme positions in society necessitate opposite extremes in the hope that some reasonable balance might result. Ethna M. Cotter's letter (July 1st) cannot be excused on this basis because she launches her attack on a moderate, sincere and genuine attempt by the Irish Government to deal with a social problem.
Any parent will acknowledge that four- and five-year-old children possess two very important qualities, curiosity and perception. They ask questions about everything as part of their natural development. Regrettably, most parents seem incapable of answering their children's questions about what are euphemistically called "the facts of life"; such questions are frequently answered untruthfully or deferred. Children readily discern from such parental responses that they have touched on a taboo subject. Consequently, they avoid the subject and the older they get the more they avoid it. They are then left to learn (sic) about their sexuality from their peers in a very unhealthy and coarse environment. This, and not Government policy on the subject, is the problem.
Of course the ideal is that all parents would simply answer their children's questions in a loving and wholesome way and thus teach them about their sexuality. Regrettably, this is not the reality; and it is far, far better that children are educated in these matters by responsible teachers rather than being misled by their peers.
Mrs Cotter make some quite extraordinary assertions regarding the consequences of sex education in schools. Given what appears to be her sources for these claims, it is perhaps not surprising. If one wants to learn objectively about Irish history, one would hardly read a book on the subject by Gerry Adams or Ian Paisley.
She refers to "attempts to violate children's innocence" and children having "a right to their innocence". People of all ages have a right to their innocence which should not be violated. These are extremely puzzling references given that the loss of innocence means guilt. How could four- and five-year-old children be guilty of anything? Perhaps, when Mrs Cotter uses the word innocence, she really means ignorance. It would follow from that that she sees some virtue in ignorance. Actually, that rather fits with the whole context of her letter.
Sex education is essentially a social matter. However, Mrs Cotter makes it a religious matter in the second half of her letter. In essence, she is stating that social behaviour should be determined not just by religion but by the Roman Catholic Church. She even makes the outrageous assertion that if religion were taught in accordance with Roman Catholic teaching there would be no need for sex education at all. I never knew that Nutley Park was in Cloud-cuckoo Land.
There is much that is good in religion and in the Roman Catholic Church but, as there is no escaping the human condition, there are also many negatives. As the subject matter of Mrs Cotter's letter is education, albeit in a restricted sense, I suggest she might enhance her own education by reading some objective historical works on religion in general and Christianity in particular. - Yours, etc.,
Upper Glenageary Road, Co Dublin.