Washington Archdiocese Issues ‘Amoris Laetitia’ Marriage Plan

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I printed off the good Cardinal’s full document for the implementation of AL in his Archdiocese, and can’t wait to delve into it. That will likely be tomorrow’s project. I’ve listened to and read a number of talks give and articles written by Cardinal Wuerl on the topic of AL, and I find him extraordinarily insightful and well-balanced when it comes to his discussion of the document. Perhaps that’s why he doesn’t get the press time that folks from the two extremes have been getting lately.
 
Hmmm… What he has to say is interesting, but pulling one sentence from a 50+ page implementation plan and then picking it apart out of its context is hardly commentary. I would also point out that Mr. Peters as a canon lawyer, not a moral theologian. The controversy surrounding AL has much more to do with our understanding and application of moral theology than it does Canon Law.

Again, I’ve not yet gotten to read Wuerl’s new document myself (soon, God willing). But I’ve listened to and read him on the topic enough to know that he offers the most balanced interpretation of the AL that I’ve come across from anyone out there - primarily because he interprets the AL through the lens of the two Synods on the Family, which is really the proper context in which to understand it.
 
Again, have you read Cardinal Wuerl’s document yourself? The Catholic Herald article did nothing but basically repeat Dr. Peter Edwards’ comments, which themselves were problematic because Dr. Edwards took one line out of a 58 page document and then picked that one line apart without examining its context within the document, in relation to AL and the relatio from the two Synods on the Family, and then within the context of the Church’s broader teaching on marriage. At the very beginning of the document Wuerl himself said that that is the only proper way to understand it.

I’ve personally not made it through the whole document yet, but have now got a good start on it. I look forward to reading it more closely throughout the coming days and, God willing, offering a few reflections on it.
 
I’ve read enough to realize that the good cardinal seems to be saying that individuals decide whether they should receive Communion or not, regardless if they’re in a state of grace or if they’re complying with Church teaching.
 

Cardinal Wuerl’s ‘Amoris’ Guidelines Bring Clarity, but Confusion Remains

COMMENTARY
www.ncregister.com www.ncregister.com

And another good article pointing out that there is nothing in Wuerl’s document that causes any sort of ambiguity. The ambiguity - at least, so claims the article - arises from AL itself.

As an aside, I beg to differ on that last point. I’ve found nothing in AL, after having read it over and over and over again (and then some), that leaves any room for ambiguity. Even the infamous footnote leave no real room for ambiguity with regards to Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried primarily because the footnote isn’t even addressing that (at least not those who obstinately remain in sin, but those who are actively struggling to live the Church’s teaching, despite failing from time to time).

Anyhow. Both articles are a good read.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
Hmmm… What he has to say is interesting, but pulling one sentence from a 50+ page implementation plan and then picking it apart out of its context is hardly commentary. I would also point out that Mr. Peters as a canon lawyer, not a moral theologian. The controversy surrounding AL has much more to do with our understanding and application of moral theology than it does Canon Law.
Click to expand...
I have not read the document, but I have read Peters’ commentary on it, and he raises the same question here that has been raised about AL: what, exactly does it mean? If a canon lawyer can read the comment and be unsure of its meaning it would surely be because the comment is in fact ambiguous, that is, open to conflicting interpretations.

Hardly anyone in the church who takes his faith seriously can be ignorant of the problem AL caused. Surely the observation @Mark121359 made is accurate: “I’ve never witnessed such confusion from an encyclical in all my life!!!” Whatever else Cardinal Wuerl’s plan does, it does not resolve the confusion, and from that perspective it is problematic at best.
 
My question for all of this postering is if AL and all the other documants supporting it have not changed the Churchs teaching on remarriage. Than why write anything at all about it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top