The USCCB has an anti-gay marriage apparatus put in place under Benedict, so it’s not surprising that that apparatus continues to function as before. However, Francis has said nothing about gay marriage as pope.
As the head of the Catholic Church in Argentina under Benedict, he was expected to argue against gay marriage when legalization was under way there. That was required by Rome.
Now, he is Rome.
He can do whatever he pleases.
I’m hopeful that his laser-like focus on the poor, his mothballing of Benedict’s ridiculously ostentatious outfits and his decision to ride in open cars rather than behind bulletproof glass in the popemobile may mean more changes are forthcoming.
No, I don’t expect him to say his predecessor was wrong about marriage equality–popes and bishops seldom do that as it is seen as disrespectful of one’s predecessor–but he may choose not to talk about it. Many Catholics are hopeful of this. Anne Rice voiced the same hope on her facebook page last week, and Frank Bruni said the same thing a few days later in the NY Times.
The USCCB is jumping the gun.
The fact that POPE Francis has not come out strongly against gay marriage ahead of the next week’s Prop 8 and DOMA arguments is a good thing and probably has irked NOM and some within the USCCB such as Salvatore Cordileone, Tobin, etc. If they had their druthers, they’d want a papal statement from Francis and they don’t have one.
The Vatican will continue to speak against abortion, but civil marriage–indeed any non-catholic marriage–is NOT a doctrinal issue for the church. That’s why it was able to marry Newt Gingrich to Catholic Callista after he left both of his prior non-Catholic wives.
All that said, we’ll know soon enough. If Francis does not speak against gay marriage over the next few weeks, we’ll know that he will not continue to press this issue. France is looking to legalize gay marriage early next month, and the Supremes will hear our cases next week. So if Francis is going to press this issue, he’ll do so very soon.
He’s been silent.
As saint Thomas More said, “silence implies consent.”

“silence implies consent.” Exactly. It is clear that he hasn’t put the brakes on the church’s anti-gay machinery. He’s been communing with other bishops for several weeks now, including USCCB president Timothy Dolan, so if he had wanted them to lay off the anti-gay activism, we wouldn’t be seeing USCCB promoting NOM’s event and Cordilione slated as a speaker.

Yes, but that’s very different from a papal statement “from the chair,” which is what the likes of Cordileone would love.
I’m waiting out the next several weeks as the supreme court cases and the french legalization move forward. If Francis’ silence on this issue as pope continues during this short critical time period for marriage equality, that will be very telling.
We probably won’t have an advocate in Fracis, but we also may not have the adversary we had in Benedict. And that will make a big difference as marriage equality moves forward worldwide.

I thought the Church was able to marry Newt because he had never been married in a Catholic ceremony before.

He wasn’t catholic then. (He converted for Callista.) Neither of his prior wives were Catholic. Therefore, they couldn’t get married in a Catholic Church. However, your information is correct. The Catholic Church considers marriage a sacrament, and it is therefore, irrevocable. So a “Catholic ceremony” is a sacramental ceremony, which Newt didn’t have in his prior marriages.
Just to round this out, a Catholic can marry a non-Catholic in a protestant church or synagogue with the approval of Catholic diocese and with a Catholic priest present to witness the marriage. (The priest is a witness because the partners technically marry each other–which is also the case in a Catholic ceremony in a Catholic church. The priest merely “blesses” the couple.

Your post # 1 said that Newt had married Callista in a Catholic Church. I took your word for it. I then googled to see which rationale the Church had used to marry them.

I never found what I googled for. However, I quickly saw a source that says Newt and Callista did not marry in Catholic Church. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/newt-gingrich-promises-he-wont-commit-adultery-this-time/

I have no idea how reliable that source is. I did some googling but could not find anything saying where Newt and Callista married. So, at this point, I am not sure what to believe about where Newt and Callista married.

In general, though, the Catholic Church absolutely does marry a Catholic to a non-Catholic, if the non-Catholic promises beforehand, during the pre-Cana conferences, to raise any children of the marriage as Catholics.

So the fact that Newt did not convert until after his marriage to Callista does not tell us anything about whether or not they married each other in a Catholic Church.

While googling to see whether Newt and Callista married in a Catholic Church or not, I saw that Newt converted 9 years after his marriage. After he converted, he did ask the Catholic Church to annul one or both of his marriages and his request(s) was granted. However, again, that does not tell us anything about whether Newt and Callista married in a Catholic Church in 2000.

The Catholic Church does marry Catholics to non-Catholics. I never said it doesn’t. But if the marriage is a non-Catholic ceremony a priest must be present to witness and there must be a dispensation from the diocese.
Annulments are relatively easy to get if the above criteria aren’t met.
And, you’re right in saying that the Catholic church wants the kids raised Catholic.
Newt didn’t have to be Catholic to marry Callista in a Catholic church or outside of one, as long as she was catholic and, again, the above criteria were met.
I don’t know why Newt asked for an annulment of one of his prior marriages. Perhaps one of the ex wives was indeed Catholic and a priest was present at that marriage.
The church really has to update on these things.

Is the Pope Catholic?

Supposedly, condemnation against homosexuality is Biblical and not only a matter of Church doctrine. It begins with the Old Testament and Judaism.

We can argue about what the original Hebrew meant, but Paul supposedly carried the condemnation into the New Testament. We can also argue about who, for the first millennium of Christianity, had the sole say over which old writings were divinely inspired and therefore part of the Bible and which weren’t. We could, but, for this purpose, I don’t think it’s relevant.

The Church long ago decided that homosexuality was forbidden. Much more recently, it and other Christian churches came up with “love the sinner, hate the sin,” at least in part in response to studies showing that homosexuality might be genetic, as opposed to purely a choice, which had been the teaching among Christians generally.

I don’t think Pope Francis is going to be changing that any time soon. People who have studied him say he is unlikely ever to change Church doctrine on homosexuality. Ditto women becoming priests. (Paul, bless his heart, also said women should be silent in religious services.)

Let’s back up a little, bearing in mind that the main subject is Pope Francis’s position on same gender marriage.

The only thing I questioned was your statement in Post #1 that civil marriage was not an issue for the Catholic Church. Therefore, the Catholic Church had been able to marry Newt and Callista.

I suggested that the reason that the Church was because Newt had never been married in a Catholic ceremony before, which is related to what you said, but somewhat different.

At this point, I am not even sure that Newt and Callista married in a Catholic Church to begin with. Are you?

And, even if they did, what evidence do we have of what rationale the Church used?

If there is no proof of either issue, it probably makes no sense to follow that subtopic any further on this thread, does it?

What does “Marriage Equality” mean?

Is it any two people that are not already married, and are above the age of consent can Marry each other in the eyes of the law?

What benefit is there to the State recognizing such a relationship?

I’m all for equal treatment under the law, but I haven’t heard any argument so compelling that would it require changing the definition of Marriage.

I don’t know why anyone would really care. With most marriages ending in divorce or separation and most young people living together before or without getting married, who needs it. In the past there was a moral stigma against such things, but not anymore.

Hey TMW…Marraige Equality means exactly what it says…equal treatment to all Americans regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation. The benefit to the state in recognizing such is more rights and stability for it’s citizens. If you’re too clueless to understand something as simple as that, you’re never going to be convinced by any “argument!”

All Americans are already treated equally. All unmarried men of age can marry all unmarried women of age, (excluding family members).
Therefore a heterosexual male and a homosexual male can marry the exact same pool of women.

Marriage is the 2 genders coming together to form a union.

Marriage equality is based on a persons sexuality, not gender, and there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s just different, so it should be called something other than marriage.

On the other hand, what difference does it make. Go ahead and call it marriage. It’s not “traditional marriage” or “religous marriage”, it’s just “gay marriage”.

I have friends (guy/girl) who have been together for over 20 years. Bought houses together, raised each others kids, etc. but never got “married”. If pressed they may suggest they’re “common law married”, but they could care less. They know how the church feels, and anyone who doesn’t “approve” of their lifestyle won’t change their mind just because they “claim” a different kind of marriage.

So says you. Just because you or the stupid Pope believe something doesn’t make it so.

Tell me why you are such a bigot?

Any “religion” that would tell poor people they must not use condoms is evil. All relitions should shrivel up and blow away in the wind. All spirlituality should be a person relationship between one’s self and God.

All religion is rotten. Anyone who tells you they know God’s will or what happens after we die is lying to get money or power. They don’t know any more than you or I. They are all liars & hucksters.

“All Americans are already treated equally. All unmarried men of age can marry all unmarried women of age, (excluding family members). Therefore a heterosexual male and a homosexual male can marry the exact same pool of women.”

Why discriminate against women by limiting marriage to your hypothetical pool of women to males only? You aren’t treating men and women equally by doing so. Besides, if this were just about treating all members of the same sex equally, you should be just as ok with restricting marriage to same sex couples. After all, heterosexual males and homosexual males would be able to marry anyone in the exact same pool of men. You don’t care if the couples are actually compatible, right?

You should also realize that this sort of flawed reasoning would permit discrimination against religious groups. If the government refused to recognize marriages conducted by Christian ministers, that would not be discriminatory according to your “logic”. All people would still have the equal right to be married by a justice of the peace or a rabbi.