I must start off by acknowledging that the personal opinions of Catholic apologists are not binding in conscience on any Catholic, and conscientious apologists will do their best to distinguish for inquirers between what the Church teaches and what is their personal opinion. A Catholic apologist should also be open to admitting when he or she is in error, to being willing to accept and consider carefully constructive criticism, and to continue to learn and grow in his or her own knowledge of the faith. Much the same can be said of priests and other teachers of the faith, up to and including the Pope (who acknowledged in Jesus of Nazareth that everyone was free to disagree with him on his personal theological conclusions in that book).
That said, it is also incumbent on those Catholics who are seeking to grow in their own faith to also be open to admitting when he or she is in error, to being willing to accept and consider carefully constructive criticism, and to continue to learn and grow in his or her own knowledge of the faith. To dismiss constructive challenges by informal and formal teachers of the faith to one’s own settled opinions by labeling anything with which one disagrees as “personal opinion” is problematic, especially when one does so because of disagreement over how a Church document should be read. While there is indeed room for legitimate diversity of opinion on how Church documents should be understood, Catholics should be wary of falling into a quasi-Protestant “sola scriptura,” in which any disagreement over how texts should be interpreted is brushed off by labeling it “personal opinion.”
Catholicism is a religion that places value on learning from people, not just from documents. The level of value placed on the opinion of a fellow Catholic should increase based on that person’s fidelity to the Church, his or her education and spiritual maturity in the faith, and (if applicable) on the reception of the sacrament of holy orders.
