"You say that he has 'promulgated documents' contrary to Catholic doctrine. That's your assertion. The burden of proof lies on you to prove yopur outrageous statement. The burden of proof certainly does not lie on the Holy Father or loyal Catholics."
Be honest. You'd be the first to condemn any proofs by Catholics that the Pope is not orthodox. You ask for proofs, but when they are presented you invent defenses for the indefensible. You even say the burden of proof is not on the Holy Father nor on "loyal Catholics." In other words, proving this alone is enough to damn us as disloyal.
The reason for this is simple: you use the pope as the measure for what is actually Catholic, not the perennial teachings of the Catholic Church. If you would use Catholic Tradition itself, you would be as scandalized by some of these statements and actions of the Pontiff as the rest of us. But instead you make excuses and claim we are disloyal. Wake up, wideawake, and smell the coffee!
No, I read what the Pope writes in the context of Church Tradition, rather than with an automatic hermeneutic of suspicion.
If the pope writes something that seems odd, I ask myself - "does this have an orthodox interpretation?" I don't think - "Hmm, this sounds odd, therefore the Pope is an apostate and not really the Pope."
The Pope is a legitimate object of charity as well.