Folia Theologica 2. (1991)
Francisco J. Urrkutia: The Magisterium: how it works
THE MAGISTERIUM 25 irresponsible to accept a doctrine against all evidence both intrinsic and extrinsic. But obviously the H. Father himself has first to perceive the truth of the proposition that he teaches. Since, however, his own perception might prove to be wrong (see above n. 11)., although rarely given his mission and the assistance of the H. Spirit which will absolutely guaranty the correctness of that perception only in the case of the infallible teaching, if therefore, the intrinsic evidence of some one seems so strong as to weaken irreparably the extrinsic evidence of the competence based on the accepted mission, the conclusion that conscience has to be respected appears inescapable. 14. However clear this may be in principle things in practical terms are no doubt somehow more complex. Because, in order to abandon the authentic teaching that has been proposed as certain, it is not enough that conscience fail to perceive the force of the intrinsic arguments, since as I said above (n’ 7) submission to the authentic teaching is not to be the result of the critical examination of the arguments. It will be necessary that conscience positively perceive the arguments against the doctrine and furthermore that it perceive them as certain. Certitude against certitude. A private certitude against the certitude of the authentic teacher. In practical terms, whose certitude should prevail, one’s own private certitude or the certitude of the one who has received from the Lord the mission to lead us in the field of faith and morals? It is too much to demand sufficient intellectual humility, let alone religious humility, in order to question one’s own perception, which proves so often to be defective, so much under the influence of all sorts of prejudices, emotions, intellectual conditionings, when the authentic teacher is asserting the opposite? It is regrettable to note the lack of self criticism in writing statements such as „The debate opened after the Council on freedom of personal conscience has just been terminated by the pope” (H. TINCQ, La rançon d’un schisme, in Le Monde 15-2-1989, p. 11/2), or the voluntary (?) ambiguity of the following paragraph in the recent letter to the H. Father of numerous „german theologians”: „This dignity (of theology) cannot be violated by prohibitions of (freedom of) thought and of speech... Conscience is not an instrument to supply for the pontifical magisterium... On the contrary the magisterium, in its interpretation of truth, refers to the individual conscience of the faithful...” (translated from the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Jan. 27, p. 10).
