Authority and Reason

I wanted to post a link to Rick's op-ed in USAToday, but he beat me to the punch.

So instead I'll ask an inflammatory question.  This question came to me (again) after reading some legal theory by a very orthodox Catholic academic who will remain unnamed (no one on this site).  It occurred to me that this person's scholarship seems to coincide perfectly with the Catholic hierarchy's authoritative teachings on every issue I have seen it address.  Now, this person's scholarship is not written in terms of authority but rather in terms that are reasonably accessible, though not necessary convincing, to anyone, irrespective of his religious views.

It seems to me that this pattern is perfectly in line with what the hierarchy expects of "good" (obedient) Catholic academics (or any Catholic for that matter) with regard to authoritative Church teachings.  But does the expectation that Catholic academics will assent to authoritative teachings (and not publicly argue against them) undermine the legitimacy of Catholic legal theory?  Assuming that the conclusions to which this person reasoned were set in advance by the magisterium, can we have any faith in the arguments themselves?  Would the arguments have more credibility if we thought the person was following his line of thought where it took him?  Or should the subjective motivations of the scholar have absolutely no bearing on the matter? 

Perhaps this distinction only matters (or matters most) if one does not fully understand the arguments themselves.  I myself would probably be marginally more willing to struggle to understand an argument if I thought the person who made it was pursuing his own line of thought rather than trying to gin up an argument to reach a preordained conclusion.  That is, in the latter situation, I think I would be less inclined to conclude that the problem was with my own comprehension and struggle to remedy it.  But maybe that is not fair.  What do you all think?