Sir, You are to be congratulated, Sir, on the two features (only separated by a column) on the editorial page (May 3rd) on the rivetting subject of sex: one, an honest cry from the heart by your diarist, Kevin Myers, and the other evasive words full of milk and honey by a letter writer, a Mr Fitzgerald. To have the two so narrowly separated on the one page was a joy, and spoke millions.
One may be persuaded that Mr Fitzgerald's heart is in the right place. He speaks of "responsibility" and "what our children deserve and there may not be any malice in his teaching. What I am not persuaded of is the constant and contemporary juxtaposition of "relationships" beside "sexuality". Is the first word not intended, quietly, to reassure us about the danger that might linger in the second word? What can we learn about relationships except from the guidance of a few fundamental rules: not to bear false witness, not to abuse carnally and not to kill? From the very first yell that we address to our parents are we not learning the now unavowed truth that (apart from this ethical skeleton) the only way we learn about "relationships" is through the living of them?
Nor am I persuaded that any teaching about sex is necessary beyond the time honoured three finger gesture . . . pointless to ban! Anything else becomes a mountain of knowing, a challenge and an irritation - in D. H. Lawrence's words "sex in the head".
Nevertheless, because of the divine economy and because of who we are, marriage is a sacrament and the lowly congress of our flesh may be redeemed. We are not chained to our bodily functions! Yours, etc.,
Piperstown,
Dublin 24.