Our next principle is documented in Donum Veritatis 24:
The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.
This is clear from reason even without the support of this CDF statement. The statement that teachings can have more or less authority can only mean that they override more or fewer difficulties; short of an infallible statement, it is always possible that some difficulty could arise so grave that the teaching cannot be maintained any longer. However, the average Catholic does not know enough about his faith to judge whether a new statement is consonant with the faith, so he is not able to have the sort of difficulties mentioned in the previously quoted paragraph. It is the theologian who may have a real ground for difficulty.
So Principle #13 is:
Theologians and laymen are not bound to respond in the same way to the same magisterial document.
Notice, of course, that “The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule,” and that the Theologian must use Principles #7, #8, and #9 before proceeding to raise questions.
