What do you think of the National Sexual Health Policy for the Maltese Islands that was published some weeks ago by Health Minister Joe Cassar?

Some of the statistics quoted in the report clearly demonstrate that the sexual revolution which the Kinsey report had established as having occurred in the US half a century ago has by now also swept our island.

Between 2000 and 2009, 936 babies were born to Maltese mothers under 18 years. Five per cent of all teenage mothers who delivered 47 children were aged under 15. This high proportion of very early pregnancy is allied to another fact: the higher consumption of alcohol than the European average by young Maltese teenagers.

“Close to a third of sexually active young people in Malta aged 14 to 16 years had sexual intercourse at least once under the likely influence of alcohol or other substances,” according to the document.

These two figures should suffice to lead one to a clear conclusion. The failure to provide sound sexual education to our children especially as they approach adolescence has already wrought much greater damage to family life in a Christian perspective than any divorce law is likely to wreak.

Obviously, this assertion is not an argument in favour of divorce legislation, but it is merely meant to highlight a disproportion in our reactions to the various factors that have all been sapping the family in Malta.

Surely there should be much greater concern with what can be done both positively in the form especially of education and negatively in the form of controlling to the extent possible the influences that have led to what is already a catastrophic situation.

Why do you think has there been this excessively delayed reaction?

I very much suspect that one cause has been what is to me an incomprehensible misunderstanding. The report highlights the fact that most of the premature sexual activity by our youngsters is “unprotected”. In other words neither condoms nor any other contraceptive device is used.

On this topic, there has been a reaction to a recent observation by the Pope that keeps puzzling me. The Pope pointed out a basic principle of moral practical reasoning, namely that you shouldn’t do any action that is bad in itself (such as the Pope believes is any use of contraceptives), but if you are going to commit such a bad action, then it is better if you seek to minimise its bad consequences (as would be in some cases the use of condoms).

Strangely enough many journalists had quite wrongly assumed that the Pope had rejected this principle when he had warned against the impression being given that the use of condoms was a sufficient guarantee against the spread of Aids. Patently, there is no inconsistency between these two statements.

Indeed both precepts should be presented jointly in any reasonable educational endeavour.

One of the most intriguing remarks in the report is that it notes a paradox. On one hand, our National Curriculum prescribes sexual health education as part of the Personal Social Development syllabus, among others.

On the other, “evidence emanating from 16 focus groups with young people at different schools in Malta and Gozo, conducted as part of a local large scale empirical research study, indicates that sexuality and relationships education remains scanty and uncoordinated among the schools primarily due to limited and restricted timetable... a widespread lack of preparedness and effective technical skills by teachers... lack of co-ordination with parents”.

There has been a protest by PSD teachers against the criticism of them in the report but I do not think anybody can reasonably contest the report’s insistence that very careful and deep study needs to be devoted to the problem if it is to be tackled without risk of doing more harm than good.

Are there any concrete proposals for the implementation of the policy on the part of the various stakeholders, since other bodies such as the Church besides the government have a part to play?

The policy was presented as only the basis on which a strategy would be elaborated after discussion had led to consolidation of the principles set out in the policy. It is in the strategy that the more concrete proposals will hopefully emerge.

However, there are already several concrete proposals in the report, such as adopting “a one-stop ‘shop’ sexual health service approach… A need and feasibility assessment process for the integration and networking of these sectors (six had been listed) is indicated”.

At this stage the policy does not spell out any particular expectations from the Church, although religious education is mentioned among the variety of subjects in the curriculum that also deals with sexual health.

Moreover it is observed that “the milieu, ethics, moral and cultural values, personal choices and prevalent lifestyle in a context need to determine the planning and development of any campaign”. The report implies that close collaboration with the Church, among other cultural groups, is hoped for, for such a campaign to be fully effective.

Notably the minister in his introduction says: “This policy draws on a set of principles of individual and social rights and responsibilities of the human being, underpinned by the values of respect and dignity towards human life from the moment of conception, and on the belief that the stable family unit is the cornerstone of a healthy society, respectful of social, sexual, religious and cultural diversity.”

Fr Peter Serracino Inglott was talking to Miriam Vincenti.