Second Sight

So that’s that then. Stephen Hawking has assured us that the laws of physics are sufficient to explain the universe we live in – and that we have no need to posit the possibility of God. His book, The Grand Design, will be published on September 9.

This is neither the time nor the place to focus on the detail of his arguments, and no doubt plenty of description will be forthcoming in the popular press and elsewhere. I want to focus initially on one remark he makes: “philosophy is dead.”

Bang goes the wisdom of two and a half millennia. But philosophy is not only not dead, it was never needed as much as it is now. One of the most important tasks in philosophy is to ensure that the right questions are asked and that the arguments which proceed stand up to rigorous examination. No wonder Hawking would like philosophy to be dead because he is wrong on both counts.

The drive of Hawking’s approach is that the theory, or rather the family of theories, he espouses leads to the possibility of 10 to the power of 500 different universes (try that on your calculator and watch it explode). Thus the extraordinary fine-tuning required for a universe which would eventually be able to support human life is not evidence for a designer God; it has in fact come about by chance. Since our universe is, by definition, the only one we can experience, we are fooled into thinking that it is the only one which exists, or has existed.

M theory, as it is known, is highly controversial within the scientific community; indeed there are eminent names who claim that it cannot properly be called a scientific theory at all. The idea of multiverses to explain the fine-tuning has been known as the “last refuge of the agnostic”. But let us assume that it is true, that there is an infinity of universes, and that our universe is an inevitable result of chance at work – where does that get us?

First, we are reminded of the theory of evolution. We have no difficulty in reconciling our belief in God as creator with evolution in which myriads of tiny chances, inevitably filtered by fitness to survive, develop into higher forms of life. God is not some sort of inventive superman who performs in the same sort of way as we do – but at an infinitely higher level. He transcends the universe; his creative action is utterly beyond our ken. If we use terms like “designer” it is only because the human mind and human vocabulary has no further reach. Our descriptions are only useful if we always bear in mind their gross inadequacy.

Similarly, if all the physical laws had been explained and proved (known as the Grand Theory of Everything) – which is a million miles from the case – our understanding of the actions of God would not be one whit greater: his existence and his actions are of a different order.

Most particularly it would not touch the question of how something existing comes out from nothing. That is a question which science cannot answer, and will never answer, because nothingness is not within its domain. Hawking apparently does not address this question – which is the true and ultimate Theory of Everything. But what philosophy can teach us is that neither he, nor you, nor I will ever explain creation, except through faith.

Of course we haven’t yet studied the major natural law problem, but this Blog is never afraid to tackle the most controversial topics. I write of a flagrant breach of the natural law which is extremely common. Indeed the Pope himself is guilty of it.

Why do a large number of males, indeed a majority in western countries, deliberately remove their secondary sexual characteristics? That is, why do they shave off their beards?

On a prima facie basis we must recognise that to remove such an obvious characteristic given to us by our Creator is a flagrant insult to his generosity and is clearly a perverse denial of our sexual natures. More careful examination reveals that the mutilation involved is, as the theologians say, intrinsice malum – and no circumstances whatsoever, except a secondary effect resulting from extreme medical necessity — can justify it.

Not that I am the first to draw attention to this neglected area of morality. The Albany Argus of 1855 was clear that removing beards was a violation of the laws of nature. It contradicted the purpose of a beard which is clearly to keep the face and throat warm. Shaving involves wasting some 40 inches of hair a year, and – over a lifetime – using up a solid three month’s worth of effort. It is, the Argus said, a “barbarous practice” quite unsuited to modern man.

You may think the issue of beards is trivial, but in fact the instinctive response to facial hair lies deep in the human psyche. While the most respectable and wise have worn beards, they nevertheless constitute a threat to those whom I may charitably call “would-be eunuchs”.

You will recall (if only because it has recently been revived) the 1960s musical, Hair. Its significance lay in the fact that the new, questioning – and so threatening – generation majored on the growth of long hair and beards. They were a sexual threat.

I worked for many years for a large international financial company, and, even as late as the ‘90s, my UK boss told me that the international powers that be had always held back my promotion on the grounds that my beard gave the wrong image.

I have been fortunate in my women friends, and I enjoy the proximity of the fair. So I had the opportunity to observe what happened when I grew a beard in middle life – a grizzled version of which is still with me today. About half my women friends retreated to a safer distance, while the other half came in closer. The contrast was most marked. But I suppose the epitome came when I asked my wife whether or not she liked my beard. She answered: “It’s like committing adultery, without all the hassle.”

The beard stays on.

Here’s a problem – and a solution.

A recent study in the August issue of the British Journal of Urology reported that almost two thirds of women reported sexual dysfunction. Six key areas were noted: lack of desire, arousal issues, lack of lubrication, lack of orgasm, lack of satisfaction and/or pain during intercourse.

These problems strongly relate to age. For example, lack of desire was reported by 48% (44%) of women in the 31 to 45 age group. And by 65% (48%) of women in the 46 - 57 age group. The figures in brackets refer to difficulties in achieving orgasm. By the age of 70, lack of desire, satisfaction and orgasm is around the 90% mark.

The sample was large enough to give significant results, but the participants were all attenders at a urology (trouble with the waterworks) clinic, which may mean that they were untypical. However the results correlated well with a Turkish study suggesting that the prevalence of female sexual dysfunction, and its relationship to age, is biological rather than sociological. You can read a fuller summary here.

Does this have any special significance for us? Perhaps not – unless one considers the evidence that women tend to be more sexually interested around the time of ovulation. Since this is the time when sexual congress is ruled out in natural family planning the best chance for women prone to sexual disorders to promote the relationship through satisfying sexual connection has to be eschewed.

However, take heart. Another very recent study tells us that women have a tendency to be more erotically aroused by men wearing red garments, in preference to any other colour. So the whole problem might be solved by the purchase of a pair of bright red pajamas. Good luck!

st. joseph, a regular contributor to the blog, has referred from time to time to methods of contraception which are claimed to act as abortifacients. This subject hasn’t fitted easily into the other posts but it is such an important question that it ought to be discussed. In effect it leaves on one side, for the time being, the issue of the unqualified prohibition on contraception in Humanae Vitae, and challenges everyone to consider the morality of several methods which are in common use.

I claim no particular expertise on this matter, although I have accumulated research files over the years, so this brief introduction is more than usually open to corrections and additions. And of course updating by those who have the relevant statistics and experience to hand.

First, we should distinguish between the lay view on very early abortion and the Church’s teaching. In this country the House of Commons took the view that ‘a pregnancy begins at implantation’ (rather than at conception) and that this was ‘the accepted legal and medical view’.

By contrast the Church teaches that the essential human being is present from conception. Guided by its DNA, modified by its environment, it develops to maturity not only in the womb but thereafter. Implantation takes place by about day 7, and the “primitive streak”, which is the first sign of the nervous system appears at day 15. There is good evidence that the axis of the embryo is set by the point at which the seed enters the egg. Put “axis” into the search box and you will find “Human beings from conception” (9 Oct 08) for fuller details.

Let’s start with the ordinary contraceptive pill. Or perhaps we should use the plural because different combinations of chemicals are used, usually with the aim of finding the best formula for the individual woman. The mini pill for example contains no oestrogen, and for that reason it suits many women. But in a substantial proportion of cases it will not suppress ovulation and so achieves its objective by inhibiting implantation through causing a thinning of the wall of the womb. The standard pill contains both oestrogen and progesterone, and is more effective in suppressing ovulation. However ovulation occurs between 2 and 10 percent of the time. Here, again, the conceptus will not implant because of the effect on the uterine lining. In both these cases the rate of unsuppressed ovulation is much higher than the rate of actual pregnancy. It has been inferred that this difference is, in sexually active women, a measurement of the number of abortions which are taking place. This is difficult to measure in other ways because, in many instances, a woman will not know whether she has miscarried or merely carried on with her usual cycle.

The “morning after” pill can work by preventing or delaying ovulation or the meeting between the seed and the egg. But it also works, on a long-stop basis, by affecting the uterine lining, as in the case of the long term pill.

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) have a contraceptive effect — either from the material from which they are constructed or by their production of hormones. But they also have the effect of making the womb inhospitable to implantation.

As st.joseph implies, the moral questions which arise are not often discussed. And we must remember that the long term pill at least can have therapeutic qualities such as regularising cycles, reducing cramps and minimising pre-menstrual symptoms. The Church permits the pill for such benefits, accepting the temporary sterilisation as an unwanted side effect. But, by the normal application of moral theology, the intended and unintended effects must be proportionate. For a sexually active woman the symptoms which the pill is intended to relieve might have to be very disabling to provide justification in the face of the abortion danger.

I have not attempted to reach a conclusion on these matters, and I hope that your comments and thoughts will help me to do so. It may even be possible to publish a column in the CH in due course based on what I have written, but taking your comments into account.

Just a week ago I listened to a BBC Four programme on sacred music, and then I switched on my computer. My mind was still thrilling with the faith of the composers and those moments of musical beauty which restore belief in the human spirit. Then suddenly I was in a laboratory with bacteria and chopped up DNA and a claim that synthetic life had been achieved.

From the sublime to the…? Well, to the sublime. For the sublime is to look through the threshold and see a great wonder. And the beauty of music is just such a wonder but so, in another part of human experience, is the wonder of discovery - and in this case, I think, a key stage in scientific knowledge.

What has happened is straightforward. The team of scientists at the J Craig Venter Institute have replaced the DNA in a cell with artificially synthesised DNA of an existing genome from another bacterium. So we have a natural cell containing a set of artificial instructions. Those instructions enable the cell to proliferate. The offspring cells, which are formed according to the artificial instructions, are now wholly synthetic.

Does this process constitute creation of life from scratch, or an arrogation of divine power - as many newspapers have intimated? I will return to this question, but the scientists themselves give a straight answer: “No, we do not consider this to be ‘creating life from scratch’ but rather we are creating new life out of already existing life using synthetic DNA to reprogramme the cells to form new cells that are specified by the synthetic DNA.”

A kind of reverse engineering has taken place. As a result of biologists being able to analyse the DNA in living organisms, they know enough to start constructing artificial genetic code by imitating and varying known combinations. In this case the transfer was not “perfect” although the few errors appear not to be significant. Dramatic though this first success may be, a great deal of work remains to be done. Genome transfer techniques must be refined and applied in a variety of conditions, followed by experimentation in modifying DNA to achieve different effects in different bacteria. Using an aviation analogy, the Wright brothers have just made their first flight, and the team at the Venter Institute, and their successors, have a great deal of work to do.

The project was conceptualised in the mid 1990s, but work in earnest started in 2003. I will not even attempt to describe the complexities, the setbacks and the frustration of the work. The project, which has involved 20 people for over a decade, has cost $40 million so far. Ironically, they were attempting to do the job at the simplest level possible; that is, to produce organisms with the least DNA needed to live and reproduce. They did not quite achieve their ideal, and the process of further simplification continues.

So what? “One small step for one man… one giant leap for mankind.” A cell so small that you need an electron microscope to see it lacks the same dramatic quality as landing on the moon. But I am willing to bet that in 100 years that small cell will have proved many times more significant for the human race. For good or ill.

The great achievement is to have proved the possibility of constructing synthetic, but living and reproducing, organisms. Now, through trial and error, experimental success and failure, we will learn how to make more complex and more useful organisms. This will enable us to understand in greater depth how life works. More complex organisms, developed over time, could lead to new vaccines and drugs, provide new sources of food, textiles and biofuels, enable the cleaning of water and the repair of damaged organs. It could lead to new industries and sources of wealth. The prospect is full of wonder. Against that, there is the possibility that unforeseen insuperable barriers could trump progress. And organisms which live and reproduce can spread - giving rise to the same fears that are attached to genetically manipulated crops. As a recent British report put it: “There is widespread recognition of the potential for negative outcomes.”

It would seem that the scientists currently working in this field know the immediate answers to these dangers, but when the work has been imitated (and what advanced economy would dare to be without this facility?) who will control it then? And if natural environmental danger isn’t enough, there is also the development of weapons of war and terrorism. A dust cloud of volcanic ash is one thing, a dust cloud of swiftly breeding pathological organisms is another.

I am tempted to consider the possibility that, if rogue synthetic viruses were to escape, they would eventually produce random mutations and so develop a wholly new evolutionary line. Fortunately such an outcome is likely to be hundreds of millions of year away. In this respect we can sleep soundly.

I have a ready concern for those whose worries are more of a metaphysical nature. But, having watched the Craig Venter project from the sidelines over the years, I believe that that worry is misplaced. Although there has been much discussion of the combination of phenomena needed to trigger reproductive life on this planet, the most recalcitrant questions address the earliest stages. By the time that we reach the kind of bacterial cell with which the Venter work is concerned, it is (and I speak relatively, of course) plain sailing. It has been obvious for some time that only problems of practice and technique rather than principle stood between the Venter Institute and its goal.

It is not, as it happens, an issue of whether life on this planet, or elsewhere, started through some random confluence of physical phenomena or through the direct action of God. Anyone is free to take a view, but I hold that to reduce God to some kind of mechanistic, designing agent is to create him in our own image. We simply do not know how an infinite, transcendent God sets about his business. But we find clues to him in the human spirit which lies behind our endless search to bring the creation he has given us under our dominion - in this case the agency of Craig Venter scientists - as much as we find him in the musical expression of Bach or Handel or Gorezski. Our hearts should be humbled by both and lifted to praise God.
O O O
Here are links to three articles from specialist science publications to paste into your browser; they will give those interested more detailed information than my broadly based article.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=synthetic-genome-cell
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/328/5981/958.pdf
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100520/full/news.2010.253.html

My column this week could, for some of you, be one of the most useful things you have read for a long time. Not for all of you, inevitably, because some will know about it already, and others will - for a variety of reasons do nothing about it. I am going to write about the scientific basis of meditation and what it can do for those who choose to take it to heart.

For most of us, meditation suggests mystical Christian prayer, or Buddhist contemplation, or - for the right generation - the Beatles and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. But, for the moment, put all that aside. Think instead of spending some 20 minutes in deep relaxation. And by deep, I mean very deep indeed. The effect will be a great calming of the spirit and tranquillity, a lowering of blood pressure, and, should you suffer from it, a marked relief of depression.

Deep relaxation is a skill. It is in theory accessible to everybody but it takes about a week of regular practice to acquire the rudiments. The skill then continues to deepen until you can call it to your aid instantaneously. As a trivial example, were you to feel my muscles in the dentist’s chair, you would find them completely relaxed, and my capacity for pain reduced to a minimum.

First, an exercise. Clench your fist as tight as you can - so tightly that it shakes with the pressure, Then relax it slowly, attending the growing feeling of relaxation. At the end you will find your fingers to be floppy but - more importantly - you have learned what relaxation feels like. Got the basic idea?

Now lie, or sit down comfortably, and relax every muscle in your body. Follow a sequence: hands, arms, shoulders, neck, face, chest, stomach, buttocks, legs and feet. Clench each muscle and then feel it slowly relax. Occasionally check back to see if earlier muscles have tightened. You will not find it easy and only practice will help you into a state you may never have experienced before A fully relaxed state uses so little energy that breathing becomes lighter and almost seems to cease.

Lie there, relaxed - perhaps listening to some tranquil music - for about 20 minutes. And then bring yourself to - but slowly; and get back to the trials of real life.

What is happening inside your brain? Theta waves associated with deep relaxation increase, and so do alpha waves, which tend to increase when the brain withdraws from intentional or challenging tasks. Beta waves which are needed for such tasks are few, and so are delta waves. Delta waves are associated with sleep - which is a quite different state from deep relaxation. But you don’t need to remember any of that. I put it in just to show that deep relaxation is a measurable state of the brain, induced from the relaxation of the body. You need to be neither holy nor clever to learn how to use it.

My original exploration of the subject started many years ago because the evidence showed that two separated periods of 20 minutes deep relaxation had a measurable and continuing effect on blood pressure. That investment of daily time has yielded high returns in so many ways.

Further practice develops further uses. I can now use “triggers”. I am able to deepen my relaxation throughout my body in the midst of ordinary life, simply by relaxing a hand. The number of occasions when this has checked an irritable remark or an imprudent decision is countless - although my wife would tell you that I still have some way to go. This brief, instant relaxation is also useful for, say, a mother of young children for whom five quiet minutes is a luxury.

Deep relaxation puts the brain into a highly suggestible state. And it becomes possible to use it for self-hypnotism - by definition this is conscious and controlled. It can be a valuable way of changing an unsatisfactory attitude of mind simply through autosuggestion. Don’t expect sudden conversion: this is not magic but just an effective way of moving the mind into constructive directions.

Now that I have demystified this neurological phenomenon, let me replace some of the mystery. I suggested that one might use music as a background. This helps to clear the mind and checks thought processes so that intellectual focus is curbed. But many people prefer to use a mantra - recited throughout the process. Many will know the Tibetan Buddhist mantra, om mani padme hum. No exact translation exists, but it relates to the virtues of withdrawing from self-centeredness.

I prefer one which is more overtly Christian. Maranatha (”Our Lord has come”) is popular; but I favour Julian of Norwich’s “All manner of thyng shall be wele”. It encompasses the idea of Christian peace and confidence. But it’s a personal choice.

More recently I have started to train myself to a further stage where I eschew mantras and simply place myself in the presence of God. I regard thought of divine attributes as a distraction since any human understanding diminishes rather than embellishes. Nor, of course, does any prayer of petition apply, since the only relevant reaction is open-ended wonder. I am not very good at this yet, but, as I have suggested, much practice is required at every stage.

My description of deep relaxation (and its use in prayer) has been short and personal. The professional audiotape I published several years ago was widely used, but is no longer available. However, secular accounts of deep relaxation are available in good bookshops for further study. I look forward to comments on www.secondsightblog.com from your experience - especially with regard to its use in prayer.

The very idea that one might conceive a child using the DNA from three parents is one that makes us shudder. But let’s check our immediate instincts and think the problem through. The announcement today about the transfer of DNA from one egg to another in order to avoid the damage caused by faulty mitochondria will be the source of much discussion. Those of you who want to look behind the headlines might first try the good lay account at Nature News.

In order to review the Church’s principles you may want to look at Donum Vitae, a CDF document.

You will notice that, although the eggs used are fertilised, the fusing of the maternal and paternal DNA, and therefore conception, has not taken place. But there are plenty of other issues to consider: artificial fertilisation, the ethical and social questions arising from three sources of DNA, and our rights to tamper with the natural process of conception.  And this is all to be weighed against the potential benefits for which the procedure was developed. It is not an issue on which I would care to give a snap answer. But you may well have some thoughts to share with us.

The human race is sitting on a time bomb. It is not the sort of time bomb which might or might not explode: it most certainly will explode - disastrously, and it is doubtful whether we can do more than mitigate some of its effects.
I am not speaking of global warming, I am speaking of population. And, if we cannot predict the future with certainty, we can at least predict the number and shape of populations over appropriate time scales with reasonable confidence. The prospect makes me shudder.
The Church teaches that marriage is centred on the procreation of children, and exhorts us to be generous in the size of our families - only limiting them for serious reason. And the Church is absolutely right. The explosion we face is not too many hungry mouths and too few resources. On the contrary, the problem is that we do not have enough children.
Am I barmy? After all, the world’s population has doubled since the 1950s, and is expected to reach over nine billion by 2050. And it’s true that in the shorter term, and in the light of climate change, we will have to make more efficient use of resources, including artificial means, to feed the world. We shall succeed, but that will not solve the real problem. That lies in the fact that, on a worldwide basis, fertility is dropping, and people are living longer. The result has to be that the average age will rise, and there will be fewer and fewer active people to support those who are too old to work.
Let me dip my toes into statistical water. In 1950 around 200 million people were 60 or over; today it is 700 million, by 2050 it will be two billion. The rate of growth in the number of old people is more than twice that of the world population as a whole. Now think of the possible consequences. The ratio of working people to retired people, which was 12 to one in 1950, will be four to one in 2050. (It will be two to one in Europe by that date.)This will create a huge tax burden to meet social security costs when, as is usually the case, they are paid from current taxation and not out of a long-term fund.
The current financial downturn will not help the situation. Not only have many pension schemes been obliged to change benefits from a percentage of earnings at retirement to an investment fund whose results depend on investment success and volatile annuity rates, but individual pension “pots” have been reduced. Intergenerational financial assistance will be much reduced since working children will be relatively fewer and taxed more heavily. And older people living alone (predominantly women) will be vulnerable to much greater isolation.
Developed and developing countries are on a different time-scale. Already developed countries have a much lower ratio of employed to retired, but the developing countries are catching up and, since the changes will occur more quickly, there will be less time to adjust. I leave the effects of political unrest and international security to your imagination.
If you would like to check my summary and look into further detail, try Googling the UN World Population Ageing Report 2009. I promise you that the executive summary will make “each particular hair stand an end, like quills upon the fretful porpentine”.
But the worst is yet to come. Do you recognise the following figures: 2.1, 1.96, 1.37, 1.82? The first is the number of children each woman must have on average to replace the population in a developed country. The remaining figures are the median ones achieved between 2005 and 2010 in Ireland, Malta and Britain. I have included two “Catholic” countries, but I could have chosen almost any developed country.
We are simply not reproducing ourselves. And this is why the world population will begin to fall after 2050 - when the effects of population ageing have worked their way through. A good thing, too, you may say, looking at the birth rate of developing countries. But the birth rate of developing countries is a function of high, early, mortality rates; it will fall to European levels as standards of living rise and economic contraception is widely available. Always has, always will.
A problem lies in the fact that the fertility rate of a country is a decision of personal convenience not a decision of government. Even China, with its draconian legal curbs, achieves 1.73 children per woman, virtually the same as Britain. But our prosperity is, rightly or wrongly, founded on modified market forces. A falling population means falling consumption, and that means economic depression on an unprecedented scale and unprecedented length.
Do the maths. I calculate, assuming a rate of 1.5 children per average woman, that a given population of 100 per cent will reduce to one per cent in 15 generations. Eventually the human race will get all the way back to Adam and Eve - and we can wrap it up and all go home.
You can see this illustrated informatively and amusingly here. But look at the information rather than the entertainment. It’s serious. I have seen it suggested that every married woman, who is in a position to do so, should aim at a family of three children. That looks about right because it allows for the unmarried, the infertile and those who have grave reason for restricting their families. It won’t solve the problems I have described in this column but it will be a step or two towards reducing them. A quick check tells me that my wife and daughters have a fertility rate of 3.2. So we pass, but many of you will have done much better.

What do you want from this column? One of the advantages of Second Sight Blog is that I get enough feedback to make a judgment. And one topic which is popular is apologetics. This is perhaps because the media is so full of anti-Catholic propaganda that readers need information to explain matters to their friends. And others would just like the facts for their own peace of mind. A good example of this is provided by the Pope’s statement, when he visited  Cameroon, that condoms are not the answer to HIV. Although he said this last March, the clamour gets louder as the Pope’s visit approaches.

That does not surprise me. If condoms are effective in preventing HIV/Aids, it must follow that an increased use of condoms will leads to a reduction in infection. Only someone as doctrinaire as the Pope or as brain-washed as a Catholic could believe otherwise. So let’s have a quiz.

1) Are condoms really effective in checking the transmission of the Aids virus in sexual congress?

2) Does the Church forbid the use of barrier contraceptives in all circumstances?

3) Is the Pope correct in saying that condoms are not the solution to the Aids epidemic in Africa?

Just pause and think about your answers before reading on.

The answer to Question 1 is yes. Several studies considered by the World Health Organisation of “always” condom users showed a transmission rate of one for every 100 person years, compared with seven for non-condom users. That is a very high level of protection.

This may raise an eyebrow. Did not Cardinal Trujillo, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, say that condoms were a very unreliable protection against transmission?

Indeed he did. He simply declined to accept the established scientific evidence. That was a matter for his conscience. In addition, it is important to remember that condoms must be used correctly and invariably. They must also be of good quality and in good condition.

The answer to the second question is no. The Church’s teaching on artificial contraception is based on the total giving of oneself, and one’s faculties, in the physical expression of marriage. She makes no statement about the use of contraceptives outside marriage; and that would equally apply to homosexual acts.

This puts us into the position of having to make up our own minds. It seems clear to me that to fornicate while choosing to risk an unwanted pregnancy or the transmission of serious disease multiplies the sin as an offence against love. I am aware that some people hold that because two sins would be involved, the offence is doubled. Fortunately God is not an accountant : his criterion is not mathematics but love.

The answer to the third question is yes. The Pope’s statement was entirely in accord with the latest scientific evidence. It would have saved an enormous amount of newsprint, and - sadly - scandal, had he made this clear at the time.

The confusion arises because in Sub-Saharan Africa HIV/Aids is a pandemic. It is not confined to discrete groups where a well-motivated and dedicated campaign of condom use might have good results. It is too widespread for that.

There are some endemic difficulties in several African countries which interfere with the effectiveness of condoms. One of these is that there is a macho anti-condom culture, but more importantly there is a habit of multiple sexual partners. Edward C Green (a social anthropologist from the Harvard School of Public Health with no objection to condoms in principle) says: “These ongoing multiple concurrent sex partnerships resemble a giant, invisible web of relationships through which HIV/Aids spreads. A study in Malawi showed that even though the average number of sexual partners was only slightly over two, fully two-thirds of this population was interconnected through such networks of overlapping, ongoing relationships.” In Cameroon, where the Pope made his statement, the incidence of HIV is four times as high for women with three or more partners, compared to those with one partner. Green also notes that the enormous efforts at condom distribution over long periods of time have had no limiting effect on the spread of infection.

In fact, the only campaigns which have shown any success are those focused on the chaste sexual habits which happen to have been championed by the Catholic Church. This does not mean that condoms have no value; they have been useful in reducing infection stemming from the sex industry. But it should be noted here that the Church has had no reason to make a ruling on this - see Question 2. For the sake of completeness here I should mention that male circumcision also has a significant effect on the reduction of transmission.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) does, however, have a duty to make a ruling on the lawfulness of infected married couples using condoms, since doubts on the issue have been raised at the most senior clerical levels. It’s awkward, of course. Either it doesn’t know (and uncertain laws don’t bind); or it is not prepared to admit that the principle of deriving unconditional imperatives from the structure of human acts is faulty; or it is terrified of stating publicly that its rules are more important than human lives.

The failure to give an answer after so many years (see Vatican Notebook, February 12) raises once again the question of the use or misuse of authority. Since human life and the stability of marriage are the issues at stake here the failure to respond is a serious cause of scandal.

But you may be able to explain better than I why the CDF has neglected this question. I look forward to hearing your views on www.secondsightblog.com.

We are rightly concerned about secular attempts to lay down how we should teach our beliefs about the proper use of sexuality. The threatened Bill on children, schools and families would, on first reading, appear to do just that.

But we will be relieved to read that we will remain entirely free to teach full Catholic doctrine. And if you think that to be of no significance, take a look at the steam rising out of the ears of the secularists at what they see as a flagrant betrayal of the principle of non-discrimination.

No, the difficulty lies with the obligation to give children a fair and balanced view of the issue being discussed and to recognise that there are alternative views which others hold, and are entitled to hold, even though we may believe them to be mistaken. That is no more than straightforward Catholic teaching on the sovereignty of conscience.

But I want to go beyond that and argue that a new educational approach will bring its own advantage. Not that it is a big challenge to get better results than the traditional spoon-feeding approach. Spoon-feeding has not worked because young people on the verge of adulthood are unwilling to accept authority blindly. They may profess to do so in the classroom, but they are aware that real life is different and, when temptation looms, defences fall. It is true of them, as it is true of us, that “a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”.

There is no formula guaranteed to send our young out into the world as perfect models of Christian chastity and virtue. But it is possible to help many to understand for themselves and live out their understanding. If some of these then make mistakes, at least they have a solid background to which they can return.

The principle is straightforward. The school is rightly obliged to give the teaching of the Church. It is a Catholic school and that’s what it says on the tin. In doing so it must give the full reasons why it holds a doctrine. But it must also evaluate, with scrupulous fairness, the opposing arguments. It is only then that the pupils are truly free to accept and internalise the Church’s teaching.

What has been lost? Those who do not accept would not have accepted the spoonfeeding approach at any useful level. What has been gained? Those who accept are able to make a free, internalised commitment. All whose previous knowledge of the debate was scanty or misinformed are now fully briefed, and ready to defend their beliefs against all comers. Let me illustrate this approach with some examples.

The Church teaches that sexual congress is such an invaluable gift of oneself that it belongs only within the unconditional commitment of marriage. We all know the general arguments for this, and the competent teacher will be able to display the strong sociological evidence in support. Everyone will be aware of the powerful temptations which draw many into a betrayal of this gift. The only reward for pretending otherwise is loss of credibility. It would be more useful to ask pupils to compare Catholic teaching with the proposition that sex is appropriate in casual relationships, or as a form of entertainment. Do we really put such little trust in our ability to present the Church’s good or in our young’s ability to recognise it? And, if so, what have we been doing as parents?

Contraception involves the problem that if teachers, clerical or lay, follow the pattern of surveys then the majority will not, in practice, accept the Church’s blanket condemnation of artificial forms. But here the orthodox teaching must also be given, accompanied by the best evidence, both theological and sociological. The choice here is simple: either leave the children with their half-baked erroneous ideas or teach them the facts on contraception - from which methods are abortifacient to the level of safety they give against conception and disease. This is general knowledge, not advocacy of a way of life. But every parent must face the question: What would I do if I knew that my child was involved sexually, against my wishes, and I didn’t know whether they were protected? Bear in mind that the Church’s teaching on contraception applies only to marriage.

I hardly dare enter the subject of homosexuality for the thunder of red rags and bulls charging over the horizon. So I will confine myself to saying that bullying a gay person on the grounds of orientation or lifestyle is a sin against love far greater than any which might be imputed against homosexual acts.

For me, strength of feeling makes the question of abortion the test case. Unsurprisingly, our pupils are aware that abortions take place, and that we condemn this as the taking of innocent life. What the pupils need is a proper understanding of the wonderful work of God in how the baby grows and flowers from the foetus to their newborn brother or sister. The duty of balance requires that ultrasound scans should be used, since the emotional factor is normally inhibited by the invisibility of the baby. And full information on the practical provision available for the prospective mother is necessary information.

But pupils should also understand how fear, family pressure or plain ignorance leads some women to have abortions. We must be clear about the objective wrong of abortion but we are in no position to judge the mother. Rather, she should be the object of our prayers, and our practical help - particularly if she chooses abortion. Needless to say, our practical help does not include colluding with the abortion.

I am sure that some readers will think that I have sold the pass. I would say to them: take consolation from the fact that the credibility among the young towards the Church’s sexual teachings could scarcely be lower than it is today. There is nothing to lose. And bear in mind that secular schools must provide similar objective information about our views. I don’t think this is what the champions of the Bill had in mind - but, if they provided the noose, they too must be prepared to hang in it.

Quentin de la Bedoyere was a marriage counsellor under Catholic auspices for 20 years, working with schools, with engaged couples and in remedial counselling. His major work on counselling, Managing People and Problems, was published by Gower Press in 1988, later in paperback. It has appeared in several European languages. He has five children and 14 grandchildren