P
phatcatholic
Guest
Since procreation is such an important responsibility, I was wondering if a person with HIV/AIDS was allowed to get married in the Church.
thanks,
phatcatholic
thanks,
phatcatholic
- Status
C
carol_marie
Guest
I think this is an excellent question for the Ask an Apologetic. Have you thought of posting it there?
My first thought is… maybe they just agree to not have sex? Then my second thought is maybe that’s not negotiable? Then my next thought is what’s the difference between someone with AIDS agreeing not to have sex vs. someone confined to a wheelchair who physically can’t have intercourse… are they allowed to marry? I will be curious to know the answer to your question also…
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
Perhaps Deacon Lansing will address this since he is a canon lawyer, but here’s my take…
Procreation is not an essentail component of marriage, it’s a goal (one of two). However, consummation of the marriage is required. Thus, anyone who is incapable of consumamting the marriage (usually through permanent impotence) is generally barred from marriage. Since AIDS does not render one impotent is would not, in and of itself, be an impediment to marriage.
Note that if procreation were a requirement people could not marry if the woman was past menopause or if the man had had surgery to remove a prostate gland becuase of cancer. In fact, no sterile person could marry. Fortunately, this is not a requirement of marriage.
Therefore, I see no reason why a person with AIDS would be denied marriage simply because he or she has AIDS. At the same time, such a person would be in a difficult position since one would not want to infect a spouse with the disease.
Deacon Ed
Procreation is not an essentail component of marriage, it’s a goal (one of two). However, consummation of the marriage is required. Thus, anyone who is incapable of consumamting the marriage (usually through permanent impotence) is generally barred from marriage. Since AIDS does not render one impotent is would not, in and of itself, be an impediment to marriage.
Note that if procreation were a requirement people could not marry if the woman was past menopause or if the man had had surgery to remove a prostate gland becuase of cancer. In fact, no sterile person could marry. Fortunately, this is not a requirement of marriage.
Therefore, I see no reason why a person with AIDS would be denied marriage simply because he or she has AIDS. At the same time, such a person would be in a difficult position since one would not want to infect a spouse with the disease.
Deacon Ed
J
JOHNYJ
Guest
The question is insulting and the answer is YES !
Actually the question is a valid one, because it involves the requirement to consummate the marriage. The answer is indeed yes, but in order for the marriage to be sacramental, it must be consummated, and herein lies the problem of possible transmission of the disease. AIDS is not impotence, so it would seem it is not an impediment. However, both parties must knowingly enter into it with full awareness of the situation. Witholding such information may be grounds for annulment.
And I don’t know the effects of a perpetually unconsummated marriage. It may eventually be dissolvable under CIC 1142.
C
cameron_lansing
Guest
The condition called “AIDS” by itself is not an impediment to a valid marriage, nor would it by itself, give rise to a cause for nullity.
True, as noted, antecedent and perpetual impotence, whether relative or absolute, invalidates marital consent according to canon 1084. As far as I know, AIDS does not automatically remove the ability to have genital intercourse with ejaculate. However, this could be a complication in a particular case. Impotence is recognized as an impediment to valid marriage under the terms of canon 1084: “§1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or of the woman, which is either absolute or relative, of its very nature invalidates marriage. §2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, either by reason of a doubt of law or a doubt of fact, a marriage is neither to be impeded nor is it to be declared null as long as the doubt exists. §3. Sterility neither prohibits nor invalidates marriage, with due regard for the prescription of can. 1098.”
However, the concealment of AIDS or sterility from one of the spouses, in order to gain matrimonial consent, could give rise to a cause for nullity under canon 1098. Both are considered qualities about a person that by their very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.
If the marriage were not consummated by choice, other canons would be referenced.
Canon 1142 provides, “A non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and nonbaptized party can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just cause, at the request of both parties or of one of the parties, even if the other party is unwilling.”
Canon 1698 provides, “§1. The Apostolic See alone adjudicates the fact of the non-consummation of marriage and of the existence of a just cause for granting the dispensation. §2. The dispensation, however, is granted by the Roman Pontiff alone.”
True, as noted, antecedent and perpetual impotence, whether relative or absolute, invalidates marital consent according to canon 1084. As far as I know, AIDS does not automatically remove the ability to have genital intercourse with ejaculate. However, this could be a complication in a particular case. Impotence is recognized as an impediment to valid marriage under the terms of canon 1084: “§1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or of the woman, which is either absolute or relative, of its very nature invalidates marriage. §2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, either by reason of a doubt of law or a doubt of fact, a marriage is neither to be impeded nor is it to be declared null as long as the doubt exists. §3. Sterility neither prohibits nor invalidates marriage, with due regard for the prescription of can. 1098.”
However, the concealment of AIDS or sterility from one of the spouses, in order to gain matrimonial consent, could give rise to a cause for nullity under canon 1098. Both are considered qualities about a person that by their very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.
If the marriage were not consummated by choice, other canons would be referenced.
Canon 1142 provides, “A non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and nonbaptized party can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just cause, at the request of both parties or of one of the parties, even if the other party is unwilling.”
Canon 1698 provides, “§1. The Apostolic See alone adjudicates the fact of the non-consummation of marriage and of the existence of a just cause for granting the dispensation. §2. The dispensation, however, is granted by the Roman Pontiff alone.”
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
Deacon John,
Thanks! I thought I had that right, but had never encountered this condition pastorally so was applying what I understand the theology and canonical conditions for marriage to be. I think I passed
I do apologize for getting your name wrong in the post above…
Deacon Ed
Thanks! I thought I had that right, but had never encountered this condition pastorally so was applying what I understand the theology and canonical conditions for marriage to be. I think I passed
I do apologize for getting your name wrong in the post above…Deacon Ed
P
phatcatholic
Guest
I know this is from a long time ago, but I have a follow up question:
How can the couple be asked to consummate the marriage when the act of consummation would transmit a deadly disease to the partner? Is the Church asking this couple to simply take the risk? Wouldn’t they have to use a condom? I thought contraceptive sex was never permitted.
Thanks,
phatcatholic
How can the couple be asked to consummate the marriage when the act of consummation would transmit a deadly disease to the partner? Is the Church asking this couple to simply take the risk? Wouldn’t they have to use a condom? I thought contraceptive sex was never permitted.
Thanks,
phatcatholic
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
Please, please, do not use HIV and AIDs interchangeably, they are distinctly different.
HIV - human immunodeficiency virus - is the virus.
AIDS - acquired immune deficiency syndrome - is the final most serious stage of the virus if it develops unchecked.
A person can carry the virus and not develop the syndrome.
There are medications one takes for a lifetime to suppress the virus so that it doesn’t develop into the syndrome.
The virus doesn’t always pass on to the partner.
The virus does not always pass on to a child from such a union.
Perhaps this is why the Church does not prohibit a couple from marrying if one or the other has the virus.
The risk being taken is up to the couple. The Church certainly isn’t advising HIV people seek out the vocation of marriage, and they aren’t insisting a couple take on that risk. She is saying she will not prohibit them from taking that risk upon themselves if they believe God is calling them to marriage.
Tis better to have loved and lost than not to have loved at all…or something along those lines…
Perhaps a couple is destined to be married a short time, live a short life, yet produce a perfectly healthy child destined to do great things for God.
It is entirely up to God.
C
CRW
Guest
Deacon Ed, good post. I read that HIV positive status of one Catholic member was justification for divorce and annulment for the safety of the other member.
If this fact was revealed during the pre marriage counseling, would a priest or deacon try to discourage the marriage? Since condoms are not a valid option, three persons or more could be in harms way: The husband, the wife and children.
D
Dale_M
Guest
The Church is not asking the couple to get married - they are volunteering. If they choose not to consummate until there is a cure for HIV who would complain? Surely the couple doesn’t have to race a time clock!
P
puzzleannie
Guest
I am unable to imagine a situation in which a person with AIDS would seek to marry someone at all. Surely if I love someone the last thing I would want is to assume the risk of infecting them.
I
Island_Oak
Guest
Then thank heaven you are not a young bride in Africa, many of whom are selected by much older, infected men to marry:
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F07E3DB1F3CF93AA15751C0A9629C8B63
- Status