blog.bioethics.net

HIV does not cause AIDS. Read Harper's Magazine (March 2006) and the book "Positively False."

- by Dissident on Mar 26, 2006 at 10:56 AM | link

This makes no sense at all and doesn't seem to properly reflect Catholic teaching on marriage. I'd be curious to see their reasoning on this and suspect that it will be overturned . . . Sounds like a case of good intention gone horribly wrong.

- by Daughter of St. John on Mar 26, 2006 at 2:24 PM | link

While I think that pre-maritial testing for HIV is a good idea, I don't believe the church should have that kind of authority over peoples' lives. If the couple can still be married in a civil ceremony, what is the point of the church not allowing the ceremony. Also, how will the priest know if a woman is pregnant? Does the bride have to bring proof of not being pregnant as well as her HIV status to the priest?

- by Cindy on Mar 26, 2006 at 4:48 PM | link

While I am not completely sure I agree with this tactic, I can understand why they are requiring this. Contoling the AIDS epidemic in Africa has to start some where. Unfortunately, how many people is this really going to catch. From what I understand a big part of the problem comes from women getting raped. Maybe those giving medical care should step in and test anyone seeking treatment too.

- by Angie on Mar 27, 2006 at 6:58 PM | link

Cindy, of course the Church does not have the authority to decide who is married by priests. It's not as though there's no other way to be married.
Unfortunately the editors and pseudo-editors seem to think that the priests have a need to "stamp their moral authority on Barundi society."

- by Beverly on Mar 28, 2006 at 1:43 AM | link

Whoops - that should be "the Church *does* have the authority"

- by Beverly on Mar 28, 2006 at 11:25 AM | link

I think this is absolutely ridiculous. There are many rules within the Catholic religion regarding marriage, but a priest or head of any religion has no right to decide whether those with or without a disease can be married. I also do not believe that not marrying HIV positive people will make any stamp on public health issues-unless of course they are strict catholics and will not have sex or children until marriage-but hopefully they will only have sex with the person they are married to (in a perfect situation.) Why don't they start teaching about protection from HIV rather than shunning those with it.

- by Kasey O'Neil on Mar 28, 2006 at 12:17 PM | link

Beverly,
The Church in Burundi has the authority to regulate weddings in churches performed by priests. Of course, priests could object and go against the guidelines, though they may face personal consequences in doing so. True, people could marry some other way, but HIV+ Burundians who are Roman Catholic might not be too happy with those 'other ways.' In any case, the Church has some authority and is making use of it here: it is taxing certain forms of human behavior. Like any policy concerning HIV testing -- from secular or religious sources -- I should hope that its implications (good and bad) should be open to debate.
The idea that the Church is may be trying to stamp their moral authority on Burundi society comes from activist and human rights groups in Burundi, not the 'editors and pseudo-editors' of this blog. That should have been clear from the link that came with the post, which I wrote. If you think they are wrong, perhaps you should take it up with them. The email address of L'Association Nationale de Soutien aux Seropositifs et Sideens (ANSS) is anss@usan-bu.net.

- by Stuart Rennie on Mar 28, 2006 at 5:48 PM | link

As far as I know, the religious (and secular) vows in the past as well as now-a-days include the rule to love in "sickness and in health." Any rule following that is just so much personal opinion as opposed to religious or ethical principle.

- by Ron Winters on Mar 29, 2006 at 2:25 AM | link

Stuart, please check the BBC article again. It reads:
"Contrary to initial reports, those who are found to be positive can still be married - the church says it wants both partners to know the other's status."
This disagrees with your blog post, which states that priest are "not to marry those who are HIV positive."
HIV tests are not being used to determine who may marry in the Catholic Church. The Church does not want to know the results of the tests -- only that tests have been taken. So it is hard to see what this has to do with any 'stamp' of moral authority.
My guess is that the BBC article was changed sometime after you made this blog post. (Even though it claims that it was last updated on the 24th, two days before your post...)

- by Electrolux on Mar 29, 2006 at 9:45 AM | link

I would think that disclosure of one's HIV status to one's prospective spouse is an obvious and uncontroversial moral obligation.
There may be good reasons for the state to decline to enforce such a moral obligation, but why on earth would a church decline?
Stuart, to be clear: the form of behavior that the church is taxing is "Catholicism." Insisting that Catholics, and Catholics alone, have certain obligations prior to entering marriage makes being Catholic, all things considered, more costly, doesn't it? Isn't that the right way to look at this? If it isn't, then it seems to me the bigger problem is that others haven't followed suit.

- by Thomas on Mar 30, 2006 at 12:46 AM | link

Electrolux,
I went off initial reports (written before the BBC one), and took the BBC webpage because it seemed like a good overview with good links. Unfortunately, I did not catch that one sentence in the process. Thanks for pointing this out. I'm sorry: my mistake! I am happy to be in error on this one: it would be terrible if the Church turned away HIV+ persons. It is wise of the Church in Burundi not to take this path.
Thomas,
"I would think that disclosure of one's HIV status to one's prospective spouse is an obvious and uncontroversial moral obligation."
There is a part of me that certainly agrees with this; the HIV epidemic cannot be fought without knowledge of serostatus, and one should prevent harm to others. So in the abstract, the Church is just making people 'do the right thing'. But if you live a bit closer to the ground, things may appear more complex. Women become HIV positive in low-income countries often through 'survival sex' -- it is one of the few ways to make money (and you make more money if you do not make men use a condom). So now say you are HIV positive woman, though like more than 90% of HIV positive persons in Africa, you do not know it. You meet a man, and want to get married before the Church. The Church says you need to get tested. So you work up the money to get tested (hopefully not exposing yourself to the virus in the process), and test positive. The man obviously wants to know the results of your test; he tests negative. The man rejects the woman, and the whole community knows her status now by 'deductive disclosure'. The community's knowledge of the woman's status can come down to many things: exclusion from employment right down to people not wanting to drink from the same cup as you or burning down your shack. And your chance of gaining access to care and treatment for HIV/AIDS, already pretty small in Burundi, may become even less if your social network excludes you, and so on. So the Church in a sense has done the right thing by requiring testing, but may also add to suffering and whether the policy will improve the situation from a public health point of view remains to be seen. This is what concerns epidemiologists and human rights activists about such policies when they are implemented in reality. Are these superfluous issues?
Should the Church be concerned about the predictable adverse consequences of their policies on HIV testing and marriage, or do these fall outside their scope of (deontological) moral concern?

- by Stuart Rennie on Mar 30, 2006 at 1:21 PM | link

Mixed feelings on this one. I think if you are mature enough to get married and you think it's necessary to investigate your future spouses HIV status , then it is your choice. If they find that the church won't marry them due to pregnacy status, will this resolve the problem or will these two crazy love birds still find a way to be together with or without marriage? Why not get married by the judge? I thought the Catholic religion was forgiving? They are trying to do the right thing it seems by getting married and having their family. What is the plan to prevent adultry where HIV can be contracted while married? Also, the church demands proof that the test be done, but doesn't demand to know the results - and expects the person to tell the truth to the fiancee. Ahhhh, the more I think about this, the more I think, Who cares? Just get it done and so be it.

- by on Apr 7, 2006 at 1:59 PM | link

Premarital HIV testing is a good idea. However, to be refused marriage based on the this is a shame. Knowing your HIV status before marriage can offer a good indication if the couple will go on to have children, unprotected sex... The reality is that it is quite possible for one member of the marriage to stray during the relationship, opening up the risk of bringing HIV into the home after the nuptuals. Maybe the church should require yearly testing for the disease if they want to completely rule peoples lives!

- by Rebecca R. on Apr 11, 2006 at 1:12 PM | link