John Smeaton’s latest examination of Ten Ten Resources raises serious questions about the formation of children in Catholic schools. The Church’s own guidelines warn against educational methods now under scrutiny, while at least one English diocese expressly requires its primary schools to use the programme.
In the Diocese of Arundel and Brighton, Catholic primary schools are required to use Ten Ten Resources’ Life to the Full programme for relationships, sex and health education. The instruction appears quite plainly on the diocesan Education Service website: “Primary schools in the Diocese are required to use Ten ‘Life to the Full’ resources.” Secondary schools are also expected to use the programme, although supplementary resources may be agreed with the diocesan adviser.¹
There is consequently no mystery about where responsibility lies. Whatever autonomy schools retain concerning the delivery of individual lessons, the diocesan authorities have made a positive decision about the resources to be used. Catholic parents are therefore entitled to assume that those resources have been examined for conformity with the Church’s teaching, including her teaching about the manner in which children should receive instruction concerning sexuality.
That assumption deserves testing.
On 11 November, John Smeaton published a further examination of Life to the Full, drawing attention to films and classroom exercises which, he argues, undermine children’s natural modesty and expose them prematurely to intimate sexual discussion. His examples include dramatisations concerning puberty for children aged nine to eleven, a secondary-school lesson introducing human reproduction through references to popular songs about sex, and a simulated marriage ceremony filmed inside a Catholic church.²
These are substantial allegations. They also revive questions which Ten Ten has already answered in considerable detail, although not always, it seems, to the satisfaction of its critics. In November 2024, following an earlier investigation by Voice of the Family, Rod Isaacs, Ten Ten’s Director of Ethos, published a lengthy defence of the programme, disputing claims that its teaching was insufficiently Catholic or that its methods endangered children.³ The present controversy must be understood against that exchange. It would be unfair to examine Smeaton’s criticisms while ignoring Ten Ten’s reply. It would be equally unsatisfactory to regard the existence of a reply as proof that the objections have been answered.
The most telling example concerns Paradise Street, a series of films used with pupils in Upper Key Stage 2. In an episode entitled Girls’ Bodies, a girl becomes embarrassed during a mixed classroom presentation about puberty. She subsequently tells a friend that she found the lesson awkward because boys were present and thinks they are too young for such instruction. Her friend’s response is dismissive. The storyline continues into a domestic scene involving the girl’s developing curiosity about bras and a comic exchange with her sister and mother.
A companion episode, Boys’ Bodies, concerns a boy who experiences nocturnal emissions without understanding what has happened. His anxiety is compounded by the behaviour of his mother’s boyfriend, and he eventually confides in a teacher. The teacher reassures him, before the subject is explained to the class. Smeaton objects particularly to the intimate details discussed in mixed company and to accompanying presentations which employ humour and mime to explain bodily development.
Ten Ten maintains that the episodes deal sensitively with puberty and the anxieties of children approaching adolescence. Its defence is supported by extracts from the films and accompanying discussion materials, published for parents and others to examine. It also acknowledges the question of mixed-sex instruction and reports having amended its guidance so that schools might consider teaching the puberty material in single-sex groups.³
That last point deserves considerably more attention than it has received.
If Ten Ten considers single-sex instruction a reasonable accommodation, it has conceded that the setting in which intimate information is communicated matters. The concession is sensible, but it raises a further question. Why is separation merely something schools might consider, rather than the ordinary arrangement for lessons dealing with the most intimate aspects of male and female development?
The issue is not whether children should understand puberty. Of course they should. A girl needs preparation for menstruation; a boy should not be frightened by perfectly normal bodily developments. Parents who neglect such instruction may leave their children unnecessarily anxious or vulnerable. But knowing something is necessary does not establish that every method of communicating it is appropriate.
A child’s embarrassment before members of the opposite sex may arise from ignorance, insecurity or fear. It may equally express a proper sense of modesty. Catholic education should be capable of distinguishing between them.
The modern educational instinct is often to overcome embarrassment through familiarity, humour and public discussion. That approach may be useful in some circumstances. It becomes questionable when applied indiscriminately to intimate matters, because modesty itself involves a proper reserve concerning the body and its sexual character. The child who does not wish to discuss such things before classmates is not necessarily displaying an inhibition requiring correction.
This distinction has a doctrinal foundation which Catholic educational authorities ought to know particularly well.
In 1995, the Pontifical Council for the Family published The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality: Guidelines for Education within the Family. Issued during the pontificate of St John Paul II, the document addresses the responsibilities of parents and those assisting them in the sexual formation of children. Its purpose was practical. It considered the difficulties of contemporary education, the influence of mass media, the different stages of childhood and adolescence, and the methods by which instruction should be given.⁴
Paragraph 127 contains a warning of immediate relevance:
“No one should ever be invited, let alone obliged, to act in any way that could objectively offend against modesty or which could subjectively offend against his or her own delicacy or sense of privacy.”
The document then identifies methods which may constitute abuses of sex education, including:
“every ‘dramatized’ representation, mime or ‘role playing’ which depict genital or erotic matters”.
The warning is unusually specific. It also mentions drawings, charts and models of an intimate sexual character, the solicitation of personal information, and examinations dealing with genital or erotic questions.
The significance for the present controversy is considerable. Smeaton alleges that the Life to the Full materials employ dramatisation and mime in connection with genital development and other intimate matters. Ten Ten confirms the central place of drama, storytelling and filmed presentations in its educational method. The precise application of paragraph 127 must depend upon the content and purpose of particular scenes. The document does not prohibit every dramatic presentation involving puberty, nor every anatomical illustration used in biological education. It does, however, establish that such methods cannot be justified simply because they are entertaining, informative or intended to overcome embarrassment.
Catholic educators are required to consider whether the presentation itself offends modesty or the legitimate privacy of the child.
That is the question which the bishops ought to have considered before adopting or recommending these resources. It concerns the Church’s own principles of sexual formation, expressly articulated in a document addressed to the circumstances of modern family life.
The same Vatican guidelines recognise the right of children to innocence. Paragraph 83 warns against premature sexual information which children cannot yet integrate within an adequate moral understanding. Paragraph 119 insists that instruction respect the child’s stage of development, capacity for understanding and tranquillity. The document repeatedly gives priority to the parents’ personal knowledge of their children.
These provisions are particularly relevant to standardised classroom instruction. Children of the same age do not mature identically. Some approach puberty earlier, others later. Some have already received careful explanations at home; others have encountered sexual material through older children or the internet. What one child may receive without difficulty may disturb another. A film shown to an entire class cannot make these distinctions, however carefully its producers have considered the average age of its audience.
There is a reason why the Church has traditionally regarded the family as the proper setting for the most delicate instruction. Parents can respond to the particular child, answer the particular question and judge what information is necessary. The school assists that responsibility. It does not acquire an independent right to determine that every pupil must participate in whatever discussion a commercial programme has prepared.
The argument is older than the 1995 guidelines. Pope Pius XI, in Divini Illius Magistri of 31 December 1929, warned against educational naturalism in the formation of purity. He specifically criticised indiscriminate sexual instruction conducted publicly and the belief that exposure to sexual matters would fortify the young against temptation.⁵
The Pope’s reasoning depended upon the Catholic understanding of fallen human nature. Information does not, of itself, confer virtue. The passions are not mastered merely by becoming familiar with their objects. Christian chastity requires the formation of the will, the avoidance of occasions of sin and the assistance of divine grace.
Pius XI’s teaching is sometimes treated as though it belonged to an educational world which has vanished. Children now encounter sexualised material through circumstances unknown in 1929, and contemporary safeguarding requires attention to dangers which cannot prudently be ignored. Yet neither development invalidates the principle. Indeed, the more sexualised the surrounding culture becomes, the more important it is that Catholic education should preserve a recognisably different understanding of the human person.
This is where Ten Ten’s defence deserves careful consideration. In its November 2024 response, the organisation explains that it seeks to reach pupils who may possess little or no Catholic formation. Its lessons therefore employ contemporary experiences, drama and discussion before developing the Church’s moral teaching. Ten Ten argues that merely presenting a series of doctrinal propositions would fail to engage many young people.
The difficulty is real, and Ten Ten does expressly affirm Catholic principles concerning marriage, the dignity of the human person and the proper meaning of sexuality. It has also revised material on contraception and other subjects following criticism. These matters should be acknowledged. A Catholic programme cannot be condemned merely because it uses accessible language or recognises the circumstances in which contemporary pupils live.
Nevertheless, the method introduces a difficulty which Ten Ten’s response does not entirely resolve. In seeking to meet children within the assumptions and habits of contemporary culture, the educator may reproduce the very forms of familiarity from which Catholic modesty is intended to protect them.
The matter becomes clearer when one examines the Year 7 lesson Where Do We Come From? Smeaton describes a classroom discussion of sexual reproduction incorporating references to popular music and sexually suggestive lyrics. Ten Ten has published portions of the lesson and explained that its eventual purpose is to direct pupils towards the Christian understanding of sexual union, marriage and family life.³
There is nothing objectionable about teaching adolescents to recognise the false presentation of sexuality common in popular entertainment. Quite the contrary. The problem concerns the age of the pupils, the material selected and the manner in which their attention is directed towards it.
Children do not need to be entertained by the language of sexualised popular culture in order to understand that much of it is morally disordered. A lesson which begins by making such material amusing may create an impression which a subsequent explanation of Catholic doctrine does not entirely displace. Educators should remember that the method contributes to the formation of the pupil no less than the information being conveyed.
Nuntiatoria has repeatedly examined this difficulty in Catholic relationships and sex education. Our September investigation, Who Decides the Well-Formed Child?, considered the revised statutory framework and the authority exercised over Catholic educational provision. In October, our reporting on abortion and contraception questioned whether teaching materials and school policies consistently maintained the distinction between providing information about civil law and presenting morally objectionable conduct as an ordinary personal choice.⁶
Smeaton’s latest article extends that examination into the conduct of the classroom. The concern arises before pupils are asked to consider the morality of a particular sexual act. It concerns the dispositions being formed through repeated discussion of intimate matters, especially where humour and familiarity become established educational techniques.
This is an aspect of moral formation easily overlooked in modern curriculum design. Children learn by imitation and habituation. A teacher who treats intimate matters with discretion communicates something beyond the information itself. Equally, the repeated presentation of sexual subjects through comedy or collective discussion may affect how pupils come to regard privacy and personal reserve. These consequences should be considered when assessing the suitability of educational resources.
The alleged Year 9 wedding scene raises a related but distinct problem. Smeaton describes a simulated marriage ceremony filmed in a Catholic church, with presenters exchanging deliberately unworthy promises and a priest participating in the scene. He further alleges that the Blessed Sacrament appeared to be reserved in the tabernacle during filming.
The circumstances of that scene, including the status of the tabernacle and whether the version described remains in current use, have not been independently established. Ten Ten’s 2024 response refers to the criticism of earlier Year 9 material and explains that a revised version had been introduced.³ The allegation should not therefore be presented as proof of sacrilege, nor assumed to describe the current programme.
The underlying question nevertheless remains. Why employ a Catholic church and a simulated matrimonial ceremony as the setting for a comic illustration of manipulative relationships? The dignity of a sacrament is not enhanced by making its outward form the setting for a parody. Catholic educational media should be capable of explaining the obligations of marriage without encouraging laughter at a representation of its solemn promises.
Ten Ten has argued that elements of its presentation may not suit everyone’s taste while rejecting accusations of blasphemy. But suitability for Catholic education is not merely a matter of taste. It concerns the fitting treatment of sacred persons, places and rites. A religious setting carries obligations which cannot be dismissed as preferences concerning dramatic style.
The scale of Ten Ten’s influence makes these questions more pressing. The organisation states that its combined programmes for relationships, sex and health education, personal development, prayer and liturgy are used in more than 80 per cent of Catholic schools in England and Wales.⁷ That figure concerns its range of resources and should not be misrepresented as proof that every school uses every Life to the Full lesson. It nevertheless establishes Ten Ten as an important provider within Catholic education.
The Catholic Education Service has worked with Ten Ten, including commissioning training provision, although Ten Ten states that the CES does not nationally approve externally produced RSHE programmes. Such decisions belong to diocesan authorities and schools.³
That division of responsibility must be properly understood. A national educational body may promote Catholic principles and collaborate with providers without formally certifying every resource. Individual dioceses may then establish their own requirements. It would be inaccurate to claim that every bishop in England and Wales has personally approved the scenes criticised by Smeaton.
Yet where a diocese expressly requires schools to use a named programme, responsibility becomes considerably more definite.
The Diocese of Arundel and Brighton is a case in point. Its Education Service requires primary schools to use Life to the Full and expects secondary schools to do likewise, subject to the arrangements described in its policy. The requirement is publicly documented. It should therefore be possible for parents to establish who examined the resources, what criteria were applied, whether the Vatican’s 1995 guidelines formed part of that assessment and what provision exists for objections to particular lessons.
Such questions require answers from the diocesan authorities responsible for the requirement. It is not sufficient simply to refer parents back to the provider, since the provider did not impose the diocesan policy.
A further development makes the need for an explanation particularly timely. In March 2026, as Ten Ten described revisions associated with England’s new statutory guidance, it confirmed that the Paradise Street series would remain unchanged. Other accompanying videos would be redeveloped, but the principal dramatised episodes under discussion were to be retained.⁸
Thus the earlier criticism cannot be dismissed as a dispute over material which has necessarily disappeared from the programme. Ten Ten has defended those episodes and chosen to retain them. The reasons for that decision, particularly in relation to the guidance on single-sex instruction which the organisation previously added, deserve examination.
The statutory framework itself leaves room for parental scrutiny. England’s revised relationships, sex and health education guidance took effect on 1 September 2026. It requires schools to make appropriate information available to parents and recognises rights concerning withdrawal from specified sex education, although those rights do not extend to every aspect of relationships or science teaching.⁹ The distinction matters when considering the legal options available to families. Catholic parental responsibility is broader than a statutory withdrawal entitlement, but the exercise of that responsibility must proceed with an accurate understanding of the law.
The Church’s own position is explicit. Paragraph 115 of The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality recommends that parents remain precisely informed about both the content and methodology of instruction provided outside the family. Paragraph 116 recognises their right to know the structure and content of a programme and to be present during classes. Paragraph 117 advises parents to remove children from instruction which conflicts with their principles, while requiring them to provide adequate formation themselves.⁴
These are practical provisions. They recognise that parents possess an original responsibility which schools and diocesan authorities are bound to respect. Catholic educational institutions should make that responsibility easier to fulfil, particularly where the matters under consideration touch directly upon chastity and the child’s developing sense of privacy.
There is an additional lesson from Ireland. In October, Nuntiatoria examined Living Love Senior, the Catholic relationships and sexuality education initiative introduced by Archbishop Eamon Martin. The comparison arose from the attempt to give Catholic anthropology a governing place within the curriculum, rather than allowing it to appear merely as a religious qualification upon prevailing secular assumptions.¹⁰
The distinction has application here. Catholic teaching must determine the educational method as well as the moral propositions eventually communicated. A programme may affirm the sacredness of the body and the virtue of chastity while employing techniques which weaken the reserve through which those truths are ordinarily protected in childhood. That possibility should be considered seriously rather than dismissed because the programme’s stated objectives are orthodox.
The authorities responsible for Catholic education should be especially attentive to such contradictions. England and Wales already possess substantial episcopal teaching concerning Catholic anthropology, marriage, sexual morality and the dignity of the person. The unresolved difficulty is whether that teaching consistently governs what happens in schools, including the resources obtained from external providers.
The present controversy offers an opportunity to establish the answer. Dioceses which require or recommend Life to the Full should publish the criteria by which it has been assessed and explain how the disputed methods correspond with the Church’s guidance. Schools should provide parents with access to the actual materials, rather than relying upon general descriptions of their educational intentions. Ten Ten should be invited to address specifically the relevance of paragraph 127 of the 1995 pontifical document to its dramatic presentations.
No Catholic parent should have to choose between responsible instruction concerning puberty and the preservation of a child’s modesty. The Church’s teaching requires both. It recognises the necessity of truthful information, the claims of personal privacy and the indispensable authority of parents. Those principles may demand considerably more care in educational presentation than contemporary curriculum practice ordinarily assumes.
John Smeaton’s investigation raises matters which deserve serious attention, even where his interpretation of particular scenes remains disputed. Ten Ten has defended its methods and made some changes; diocesan authorities have continued to recommend or require its resources. The existence of those decisions, and the reasons for them, can be established without speculation about motives.
The bishops are responsible for ensuring that Catholic education remains Catholic in substance and method. Where their diocesan authorities prescribe resources, they must be prepared to explain how those resources conform to the Church’s teaching.
The modesty of a child is not an educational defect to be overcome. Catholic schools should understand that better than anyone.
¹ Diocese of Arundel and Brighton, Religious Education and Catholic Life, diocesan RSHE requirements.
² John Smeaton, Bishops’ “relationships and sex education” programme targets your child’s innocence, 11 November 2026, supplied article.
³ Rod Isaacs, Life to the Full: Changing Hearts and Minds with Creative Catholic Content, Ten Ten Resources, 26 November 2024.
⁴ Pontifical Council for the Family, The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality: Guidelines for Education within the Family, 8 December 1995, §§83, 113–119, 127.
⁵ Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri, 31 December 1929, §§35, 65–68.
⁶ Nuntiatoria, Catholic Schools, Abortion and the Bishops’ Duty to Answer, 23 October 2026; Who Decides the Well-Formed Child? England’s New RSHE Settlement, 11 September 2026.
⁷ Ten Ten Resources, About Us, organisational description and reported school reach.
⁸ Ten Ten Resources, Life to the Full Primary: What’s Staying the Same, and What’s Developing, 23 March 2026.
⁹ Department for Education, Relationships Education, Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) and Health Education, statutory guidance effective 1 September 2026; Department for Education, The National Curriculum: Other Compulsory Subjects, parental withdrawal provisions.
¹⁰ Nuntiatoria, Ireland Shows Catholic RSE Need Not Surrender, 5 October 2026.
Leave a Reply