The article Smokey linked to looks quite accurate. The Christian Church had opinions on marriage from the very beginnings, but there really wasn't such a thing as a "church wedding" until about the 11th century; and wedding regulations weren't standardized in the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent's decree in the 1560s.

I see comments down here about infallibility and about the Catholic Church misleading people into thinking statements were infallible. We talked quite a bit about infallibility toward the top of the thread, and several posts explained quite thoroughly how limited this doctrine is. I thought I gave a particularly profound explanation of the issue here - the main point is that there have only been two or three infallible statements since the doctrine of infallibility was promulgated in the 1870s - and I question the one about ordination of women, since it didn't really follow the regulations. Yes, there is much misunderstanding about the doctrine, and the assumption has arisen that "the Pope is infallible" which is grossly inaccurate. But the Catholic Church doesn't really hide behind these misconceptions - it's just that most people don't bother to study the issue.

SO'B wondered if I were a Papal Apologist. Well....about all I can say about him is that he hasn't been as bad as I feared he would be. But that ain't sayin' much. Nonetheless, I do believe the man has a right to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church, not that I'll always agree with him. But rather than arguing about his right to speak, I think it is proper to argue for or against his positions.

The Catholic Church is not as monolithic as it may seem from the outside, and there is room for a wide variety of opinion with the Church - not that the Popes always like that diversity. But Catholic teaching does not require uniformity on most issues, despite the simplistic teaching you'll hear from the conservatives (and unfortunately, the conservatives have a monopoly on Catholic broadcasting in the US). You'll find a more realistic view of the diversity of Catholic thinking on the campuses of most established Catholic universities (not the newer neoconservative ones, but established ones like Notre Dame and Fordham and Georgetown), and in the established Catholic religious orders. The debate within the Catholic Church is lively and diverse, whether the Pope likes it or not.

This bit about the Pope being the be-all and end-all of everything in the Catholic Church, is a misconception. A "cult of the Pope" has arisen in the last 150 years, but you won't find most of the beliefs of the papal absolutists in official Catholic teaching. For most Catholics, the Pope is a guy in faraway Rome who is mostly irrelevant. For Romans, the Pope is completely irrelevant - and the Pope knows it.

The management of the Catholic Church conducted itself shamefully in the child molestation scandal, and all Catholics know it - and even the Pope acknowledges it.

Despite the widespread prejudice against homosexuality in the Catholic Church, many priests and nuns and Catholic lay people have a far more compassionate view of homosexuality, and many have devoted their lives to AIDS/HIV ministry. Most nuns I know have a very favorable view of homosexual marriage - so do I.

So, it ain't all bad - and the Pope (surprisingly) seems to realize that there is a lot of room for discussion. This Pope likes discussion - the previous one didn't.

-Joe-