There, of course, were those who were unhappy with this turn of events. They complained that the ... Cimagala: Sex education...

There, of course, were those who were unhappy with this turn of events. They complained that the bishops did an overkill, their understanding of the issue simplistic. Some form of sex education in schools, they insist, is a must.

This has made me wonder whether these people are aware that only recently we complained about the deterioration of our English education in the schools, in spite of heroic efforts to nurture it for many years.

Sex education in public schools? Give it a few months before it degenerates into something really nasty. We'll be producing students not only with fractured English but also with ballistic sexual appetite.

Let's not be naïve about this. Sex is an extremely delicate subject. It should be handled most prudently, considering its volatile character. Sex education cannot be given in a generic way. It requires person-specific attention.

This is because sex education is not about being clever to be safe, about practical, technical knowledge. It is about virtue, about chastity, about love, a love that involves God and man and woman down to their bodily dimensions.

In the recent controversy, everyone has a point. Even the devil can make a point, and at times can score a big point, except for a little lie that spoils the whole thing. He can even appear as an angel of light to pull his grand deception.

What strikes me about the reactions as reflected in the press is the haste in the way they were expressed. There was improvisation galore, with ideas whose gestation must not have lasted more than a split second.

The position of the Catholic Church on sex education can virtually be seen in the document: "The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality: Guidelines for Education within the Family," issued by the Vatican in 1995.

In that guidebook, everyone is reminded that the task of education is primarily a responsibility of the parents. The schools, the government, etc., only take on a subsidiary, supporting role. The parental duty should not be replaced by them.

This is especially so when sex education is concerned. In one point, it says that parents can ask the assistance of schools that should be under their attentive guidance and control, not the other way around.

"It follows that any educative activity, related to education for love and carried out by persons outside the family, must be subject to the parents' acceptance of it and must be seen not as a substitute but as a support for their work.

This is cache, read story here