Consequences of 'sexual liberation'

Madam, — "It's time to stop judging others for having sex," was the heading on Quentin Fottrell's extended outburst in your …

Madam, — "It's time to stop judging others for having sex," was the heading on Quentin Fottrell's extended outburst in your edition of May 20th.

One could offer many criticisms of Mr Fottrell's views, and John Power (May 26th) has offered some of them, outlining a range of social and medical consequences of what is lightly - and inaccurately - called "sexual liberation." Let me mention one or two more fundamental considerations.

Quentin Fottrell seems to think (a) that people who accept the existence of a God-given objective moral law are anti-sex and thoroughly philistine in their attitude to physical beauty; and (b) that they sit in judgment on other people.

He is wrong on both counts. And it isn't "OK to be single, sexually active and of a certain age," as he puts it.

READ MORE

Sex expresses the mutual love of wife and husband, and is at the same time a privileged participation in the divine creation of human life; it is not a bit of self-indulgent and irresponsible entertainment.

"We are more sexually adventurous than ever," Mr Fottrell writes. Who, may I ask, are "we"? Certainly not my many acquaintances who practise and enjoy within marriage the sexuality that Christ raised to the dignity of a sacrament. - Yours, etc,

SEÁN MAC CÁRTHAIGH,

Ballsbridge,

Dublin 4.