Folia Theologica 2. (1991)
Francisco J. Urrkutia: The Magisterium: how it works
THE MAGISTERIUM 23 11. Let us move a step further. Even from experience we know that our certitudes fail rather often. Certitude excludes indeed the reasonable possibility of the opposite being true. But, unless our certitude is grounded on revelation, or is a metaphysical certitude, that is, certitude based on the very constitutive elements of a being, it cannot exclude the mere possibility of the contrary being the truth, by way of exception. Consequently there is always a slight possibility of error and of consequent change from certitude to opinion or even to certitude of the opposite, however unreasonable it may seem at the time. All the more so, if certitude were perhaps based on a faulty perception of its reasons. And this is also true of the certitude with which the H. Father teaches a non-infallible doctrine and of the certitude with which we receive such doctrine, when submitting our intellects and wills. In other words, although non-infallible teaching is not synonymous with reformable, uncertain, wrong teaching, it is indeed possible, albeit a slight possibility that in some cases it can be reformable, because the reasons upon which its certitude was based prove to be wrong. There is nothing scandalous or subversive about this statement. It is only the infallible teaching that possesses the absolute guaranty of truth. 12. Now, do we deny our certitudes in other fields, because of the possibility of being wrong? There is then no more reason, to say the least, to deny our religious certitude based on the authentic authority of the pope, because there could be a remote possibility that in some cases he 'would have to admit that, because of new theological insights, his previous certitude appears to have been based one faulty perception of its reasons. That his teaching had been indeed wrong. The question, then, in practical terms, is the following: since the authentic non-infallible teaching could, in some cases, be wrong, do we have to, or at least can we, in each case — assuming that we are capable of so doing — examine carefully the reasons upon which the teaching rests? The answer is an emphatic no. Because, if in the last analysis, we bow to the non-infallible teachings of the pope because we agree with the reasons upon which his teaching is based, then we do not „submit our intellects and wills" to the religious authority given by the Lord but, in that case, we surrender to intrinsic evidence. Then we are judges of the acceptability of the proposed doctrine according to our own subjective perception. Then
