I don’t find anything disagreeable about the article, but she doesn’t actually answer the question!
This is why papal infallibility is actually a conservative doctrine and it actually limits the power of current and more recent popes. Doctrines already defined as Dogmatic (e.g., Doctrines embedded in the Nicene and Apostles Creeds) can’t be undone, no matter how a current Pope tries to tap dance around them (Francis has not done so in these areas). Same thing for Sacramental Theology and Moral Theology. Moral Doctrines being an area he seems to tap dance around. So while Francis has not dogmatically done anything to change moral doctrine (i.e. homosexual acts as being sinful), he has in pastoral approach watered down criticizing them to such a point that one wonders if he holds opinions personally that are heretical. I think it is possible that the current Pope does personally hold some positions that are borderline heretical.
But as I said, he can’t use Papal authority to change already defined Doctrine. Any such proclamation would be null and void.
Well, yes she does.
Last five paragraphs say it cannot be done.
She cites canon 1404...Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one. [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P5A.HTM] in the next to last paragraph.
Her third paragraph from the bottom:
The fact is, if a Pope were to become so debilitated that he actually became incapable of governing the Church, and was so physically and/or mentally incapacitated that he couldn't even resign his office, nobody could step in and take charge. There is absolutely no legal mechanism that would permit any cardinal, or even the College of Cardinals together, to decide that the Pope is no longer sui compos and somehow to take charge themselves.
I think she does. She just isn't saying this Pope has committed heresy.
And from what I gather from the article it's a very precise definition which has several components involved.
I gather this is designed to protect the pope from random allegations from people who don't like him.
>>I don’t find anything disagreeable about the article, but she doesn’t actually answer the question!<<
That may be because it was meant to be a rhetorical question to which the answer is obviously “yes”.