Georgetown AIDS prevention study called inaccurate, biased against Catholic ethics
Imprimir Incrementar tamaño de fuente Disminuir tamaño de fuente

Georgetown's Healy Hall

Washington D.C., Jan 15, 2008 / 03:43 am (CNA).- A Georgetown University study that dismissed the Catholic Church’s approach to limiting the spread of HIV/AIDS has been criticized by a leading researcher for being scientifically inaccurate and having a possible anti-religious bias, reports Deal Hudson at InsideCatholic.com.

The Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs, based at the Jesuit-run Georgetown University, published a report in November titled “Faith Communities Engage the HIV/AIDS crisis.”  Authored by Lucy Keough, a retired officer of the World Bank, and Katherine Marshall, a visiting fellow at the Berkley Center, the report criticized religious groups’ response to AIDS victims.  The authors write:

“Faith hierarchies, leaders, and communities have in the past often been promoters of stigma associated with HIV and AIDS, partly because of their difficulty in confronting aspects of human sexuality and partly because they often assume a link between AIDS and what they regard as sinful activities.”

Keough and Marshall particularly promote the use of condoms in AIDS prevention programs, contrary to the teaching of the Church.

Ray Ruddy, president of Boston’s Gerald Health Foundation, wrote a letter to Georgetown University President John J. DeGioia asking him to disavow or retract the report.  Ruddy’s letter said the report "castigates the Catholic Church in particular and the faith based community in general." 

"It seems incredible to many of us that the Catholic Church in general and the Jesuits in particular would permit such an inaccurate and misleading report to be published," Ruddy wrote.

Ruddy asked a Harvard expert on HIV/AIDS prevention, Dr. Edward C. Green, to evaluate the Georgetown study.

Green, who is not a member of any religious denomination, said the Georgetown report ignored the scientific evidence that behavior change, rather than condom use, has checked the spread of HIV/AIDS.

The Georgetown report, Green says, gets "the story all wrong: they emphasize the role of increasing condom use in bringing down Uganda's HIV rates and downplay the dramatic increase in the number of people reporting abstinence and faithfulness behaviors."

Green suggested that programs based on behavior change were “mysteriously absent” from programs often supported by Western donors.  The neglect of behavioral change advocacy, Green thought, supports the "financial self-interest of contractors and grantees that benefit from the multi-billion dollar global AIDS industry."

He suggested the Church has an advantage in promoting the behavior changes necessary to stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS, since “these behaviors conform to the moral, ethical, and scriptural positions and teachings of virtually all religions.” 

Green also concluded that the Georgetown report seemed to express an anti-religious bias, treating stigma within faith communities “particularly harshly.” Green wrote that the authors are apparently “making a value judgment about religious beliefs on sexuality,” needlessly depicting religious beliefs as “inherently stigmatizing.” 

The authors of the report would have done better, Green wrote, if they presented how faith communities themselves can “embrace orthodox beliefs about sexuality without contributing to stigma.” 

In addition, Green wrote that though the report recognizes the Church’s contribution to AIDS/HIV prevention through the promotion of abstinence and faithfulness, “the report seems to imply that the Church’s teaching on condom usage is detrimental to the fight against AIDS.”

Green summarized the view he defended in his book Rethinking AIDS Prevention, saying “If AIDS prevention is to be based on evidence rather than consensus, ideology, or bias, then fidelity and abstinence programs, in that order, need to be front and center in AIDS prevention programs for general populations.”

Imprimir Incrementar tamaño de fuente Disminuir tamaño de fuente
Subscriber comments:
Published by: Jason Miller, Ph.D.
Santa Paula, CA USA 01/16/2008 01:30 PM EST
In reply to Mr. Anziulewicz' comment: sir, you are attempting to use this article as an opportunity to further your gay agenda. The article addresses interventions in Uganda - where the HIV/AIDS crisis has been predominantly a heterosexual one. When attempting to further your agenda, at least try to do so using appropriate subject matter. That way it doesn't make it so obvious what you are trying to do.
Rate this comment:
Published by: Theresa
Florida 01/15/2008 02:05 PM EST
I HOPE THE NEW SUPERIOR OF THE JESUITS ELIMINATES ALL THOSE ERRORS THAT SOME SMALL GROUPS OF JESUITS STILL ARE DEVOTING TO.

MAY JESUS CHRIST CONTINUE TO DO GREAT WORKS OF APOSTOLATE AND CREATE NEW SAINTS IN THE JESUITS, IN THE EXAMPLE OF ST. IGNATUIS, ST. FRANCIS XAVIER AND ALL HIS COMPANION JESUITS!

SOME OF THEM EVEN MARTYRS, IN CHRIST THEIR LORD!
Rate this comment:
Published by: Chuck Anziulewicz
Spring Hill, West Virginia 01/15/2008 08:46 AM EST
When it comes to HIV/AIDS prevention, the church needs to ask itself WHAT would be the most pragmatic approach to Gay Christians, at a time when a younger generation is increasingly supportive of their Gay friends, family members, and co-workers.

According to a recent Barna study of evangelical youth, 80% said Christians show excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians."

I would suggest the reason for this is that evangelical youth are capable of making a moral an ethical distinction between monogamous Gay couples and promiscuous Gay individuals, rather than simply saying it's all just wrong, wrong, wrong. It is becoming increasingly obvious that Christians are beginning to see the benefits of embracing their Gay brothers and sisters and encouraging them toward lives of monogamy and commitment, rather than simply pushing them off to the side, and relegating them to lives of loneliness, depression, and promiscuity. The FORMER of the two options will be more effective in preventing the transmission of HIV.

Too many Christians, especially older Christians, still cling wistfully to the notion that Straight people get to date, get engaged, marry and build lives together in the context of monogamy and faithfulness to one other, that this is a GOOD thing ... and yet for Gay people to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing. The young evangelicals that the Barna group cites in its survey fortunately is realizing that this is a poor value judgment.
Rate this comment:
ADD A COMMENT (Your e-mail will NOT be published):
NAME:
CITY/STATE/COUNTRY:
EMAIL:
COMMENT:
 
PLEASE ENTER THE SECURITY CODE DISPLAYED ABOVE:
Chars:
* Thanks for your comments. The number of messages that can be online is limited. Length should not exceed 1500 characters. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages.
ADVERTISING
Place your ad here
Resources:
Columns:
News:
Documents:
Tools:
ACI Group:
ACI Prensa