"The idea that intelligent, well schooled Catholics maturely and soundly examine the church's logic and find it to be mistaken and/or contrary to their faith experience never enters the picture." I have considered such things as the teaching on contraception and

Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, wrote

Reason directs those who are truly pious and philosophical to honour and love only what is true, declining to follow traditional opinions, if these be worthless. For not only does sound reason direct us to refuse the guidance of those who did or taught anything wrong, but it is incumbent on the lover of truth, by all means, and if death be threatened, even before his own life, to choose to do and say what is right.

And some of the teachings are worthless. The argument used by John Paul II, in his Ordinatio Sacerdotalis amounts to "Women cannot be ordained because I say so. Now you are to shut up on the subject." Did JPII think we are all five-year-olds? Because that argument has never worked with anyone over the age of 5, and is rightly rejected by many who are even younger. If they give us good arguments, like JPII did in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, when he argued quite cogently that capital punishment is not inherently immoral, but there are essentially no circumstances in which it is morally licit.

In the Summa Theologica, I-II, q 19 art 5, Aquinas says explicitly that one must follow one's conscience, even if the conscience is in error. He says that you are obligated to inform your conscience, through study, thought and prayer.

...though, like guilt-fomenting, they have a special aptitude for it.

This passage from the article deserves a shout-out:

[url]http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/church-leaders-condescension-affront-catholic-laitys-intelligence[/url]

Flannery O'Connor rightly described smugness as "the Great Catholic Sin," but the problem with "Sensus Fidei" and arguments like it runs deeper than good old-fashioned condescension. The authors aren't just suggesting that most laypeople are insufficiently intelligent, holy or educated to interpret their own moral lives. They've also leveled the charge of ignorance in such a way that, short of reversing their position, dissenting voices have no way to defend themselves. After all, the proof of our failure to understand church teaching is our failure to embrace it. Only by agreeing can we demonstrate our faith, virtue and understanding.

The faithful are supposed to follow suit like a 1930s Stalinist following the party line.

No, the attitude of your beliefs are properly formed if and only if they follow the party line is arrogant at best.