From our pope.
If you still hold the position that you disagree with the Magisterium you follow your conscience, otherwise you are condemning yourself.
That’s the Church’s teaching.
I don’t see where the article implies that. Perhaps I missed that statement?
If you hold to that belief, you end up giving a green-light to Luther and other heretics, who thought they were following their conscience despite their disagreements with the Teachings of the Church.
Accordingly, the freedom of the Christian would be rescued by appeal to the classical principle of moral tradition that conscience is the highest norm which man is to follow even in opposition to authority. Authority in this case, the Magisterium, may well speak of matters moral, but only in the sense of presenting conscience with material for its own deliberation. Conscience would retain, however, the final word. Some authors reduce conscience in this its aspect of final arbiter to the formula: conscience is infallible.
This says that the Authority gives us the basis, the framework, upon which to form our conscience. Once we understand the material given by the Authority, we form our conscience accordingly. So, in the case of contraception, the Church explains why contraception is evil and provides us with the framework of understanding the evils of contraception and what constitutes contraception, and we form our conscience with that.
And then the very next paragraph pretty much sinks your summary:
Nonetheless, at this point, a contradiction can arise. It is of course undisputed that one must follow a certain conscience or at least not act against it. But whether the judgment of conscience or what one takes to be such, is always right, indeed whether it is infallible, is another question. For if this were the case, it would mean that there is no truth—at least not in moral and religious matters, which is to say, in the areas which constitute the very pillars of our existence. For judgments of conscience can contradict each other. Thus there could be at best the subject’s own truth, which would be reduced to the subject’s sincerity. No door or window would lead from the subject into the broader world of being and human solidarity. Whoever thinks this through will come to the realization that no real freedom exists then and that the supposed pronouncements of conscience are but the reflection of social circumstances. This should necessarily lead to the conclusion that placing freedom in opposition to authority overlooks something. There must be something deeper, if freedom and, therefore, human existence are to have meaning.
It is important to read more than just the first few sentences of Church documents when trying to summarize them.
