
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SATURDAY, August 20, 1994                   TAG: 9408220057
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A9   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: GERALD J. BRUNNING
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

ENCOURAGING THE USE OF CONDOMS IS NOT COMPASSIONATE

JAMES C. Klagge, in his Aug. 8 commentary (``Abstinence, yes, but also compassion''), has a confused notion of the relationship between sin and forgiveness. When he attempts to apply this confused notion to what he sees as a parallel situation (i.e., fornication and the ``protection'' supposedly afforded by condoms), he turns confusion into chaos.

Forgiveness is a healing of a breach between God and man - the breach caused by man's sinful actions and the healing effected by God's generosity when the sinner says, ``I'm sorry for having offended you, my God.'' Thus, we Christian sinners are taught in our catechism that we should strive to know, love and serve God, to do good and avoid evil (i.e., sin). But if we should falter in our determination to avoid sin, we should avail ourselves of God's love and generosity by admitting our sin and asking for his forgiveness.

Seen in this way, it's obvious that there's no parallel between telling a person to seek forgiveness for his sins and telling him, ``Don't fornicate. But if you do, use a condom.'' Forgiveness will ``undo'' a sin, but a condom will not ``undo'' an act of fornication. Forgiveness isn't a part of sin. But in using a condom in an act of fornication, the condom becomes a part of the fornication.

Klagge seems to award the prize for a ``goal-oriented perspective'' to those who tout ``safer sex'' with condoms. Here he puts his finger on a true weakness in public education: the goal-oriented perspective of the Christian may not even be mentioned in the secular classroom. The goal of Christian morality is to help us live so as to die in the state of grace and thus spend eternity with God in heaven. Since no one is allowed to say this in the public-school classroom, the only reasons pro-abstinence people can offer are those that to a youthful mind don't seem compelling. Pro-condom people aren't inhibited by this exclusion of their goal-oriented perspective from class presentation. It's for this very reason that classroom sex-education always results in an increase of the behavior it purports to discourage.

Another point of confusion, not only in his commentary but in the sex-ed argument as it's usually debated, is the neglect of the word, chastity, or the mis-equating of it with abstinence. Abstinence before marriage and monogamous fidelity after marriage are two aspects of chastity. Chastity is the proper use of our sexual powers, self-control of our sexual appetite, the use of our procreativity within marriage according to the plan of the creator who made us male and female rational beings. To try to teach abstinence out of the context of chastity is a futile effort indeed.

I agree with Klagge that preaching abstinence isn't enough. What we need to add to our education is the ``goal-oriented perspective'' that the purpose of sexual intercourse isn't fun and games.

It's the ultimate expression of a chaste and faithful love given without reserve ``until death do us part'' in marriage. It's designed by nature to produce children. Because children result from intercourse, and because it's the ultimate expression of love, sexual intercourse belongs only in marriage. Unless and until our schools are allowed to teach this truth, they'll only contribute to more fornication, more abortion, more divorce, more illegitimacy and more unhappiness.

Klagge calls for condom information (and distribution?) to accompany the message ``abstain.'' And he calls this compassion. It's the same type of compassion that says: ``Don't drive recklessly; but if you do, be sure your car has an air bag. Don't play with matches; but if you do, be sure you have a fire extinguisher at hand. Don't play with copperheads; but if you do, be sure to memorize the poison-control center's telephone number. Don't jaywalk; but if you do, be sure to have good running shoes. Don't swim in shark-infested waters; but if you do, be sure you have a can of insect repellent with you.''

This is compassion? Children aren't the only victims of this type of fuzzy thinking: the English language bleeds when compassion is redefined to mean making foolhardy (or sinful) choices acceptable.

It's been said that God always forgives, man sometimes forgives, but nature never forgives. That distinction illuminates the fallacy of double-message sex education, which Klagge calls ``morality with compassion.'' With or without a condom, fornication insults God, man and nature. God will, if asked, forgive sex educators who corrupt our youth with the myth of condoms. Parents may possibly forgive them; nature definitely will not. For once we violate nature, the consequences are inevitable.

Gerald J. Brunning of Thaxton is chairman of the Central Virginia Chapter, Catholics United for the Faith.

by CNB