Those in our society committed to a radical anti-Catholic agenda, as well as many 'ordinary' people with moral opinions formed more or less unconsciously by anti-Catholic forces, greeted the Government's recent 'concessions' regarding school-based sex education ('Amendment 70') as a climb-down, cynically designed to appease the Church and attract Catholic votes in the General Election. Others, predictably, have hailed the Amendment as a victory for the Church, enabling Catholic schools to continue to uphold her teachings in the sensitive and profoundly important area of human relationships and sexuality.

    Both sides are mistaken. On none of the key issues was there a Government 'climb-down', and in none of them any kind of 'victory' for the Church. Anti-Catholic forces have nothing to fear from Amendment 70. The Catholic Church in England and Wales, by contrast, faces what John Smeaton, the Director of The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, has rightly called 'arguably the greatest advance in the culture of death...since the passage of the Abortion Act in 1967.'

    What Amendment 70 says is that a Catholic school may teach sex education 'in a way that reflects the school's religious character.' It is easy to see why many on both sides of the debate have been taken in. Surely 'in accordance with its religious character' means in accordance with the teaching of the Church?

    But that is not what it means. 'In accordance with its religious character' means only that a Catholic school may convey Church teaching in addition to the 'facts' about sex and sexuality decided upon by the Government.

    And what are these 'facts' which Catholic schools must convey? Ed Balls, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, has been unambiguous. The 'facts' (in Mr Balls' own words) include 'how to access contraception [and] how to use contraception'; they include '[explaining] civil partnership' in a way which shows 'that there are different views on homosexuality' and which therefore doesn't 'teach homophobia'; and they include 'a balanced view on abortion, [giving] both sides of the argument, and [explaining] how to access an abortion.'

    We need to be absolutely clear. Although Catholic schools will be able to teach, if they choose, that contraception, homosexuality and abortion are wrong, they will also have to teach that there are different views on these subjects, what these views are and why they are held, explain to their pupils what a civil partnership is, and explain how to use contraception and where to 'access' it, and how and where to 'access' an abortion.

    So (under Amendment 70) the situation of Catholic schools, with regard to contraception, homosexuality and abortion, is as it would be if the Government were to say that, of course, schools can teach that racism is morally wrong; but were then to legislate that (in the interests of conveying a 'balanced' account of 'the 'facts') schools also had to explain why racism can be thought morally acceptable, and inform children about where they can  'access' racist literature, attend racist meetings, join a racist political party and how to put racism into practice on the streets.

What's the difference? Only this: that whereas the vast majority (rightly) believe that racism is wrong (or for that matter paedophilia, or torture, or cruelty to animals – the argument is the same, whichever near-unanimous conviction you chose), only the Catholic Church also teaches, clearly and consistently, the wrongness of contraception, homosexuality and abortion. What is at stake is her right, in her own schools, to continue to do so, free from State censorship and control.

If Amendment 70 really is an attempt to win the Catholic vote, Catholics will soon have an opportunity, and indeed a duty, to demonstrate that it has failed.