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.
This is true up to a point. If a pope who is clearly an orthodox Catholic writes something that is ambiguous, then one is required to give him the benefit of the doubt and interpret it in the most charitable possible way. But after 40 years of the "post-conciliar Church," and after 40 years of the "new springtime of the Faith," and after 40 years of deconstructing Catholicism and replacing it with an ersatz substitute, then one has to come to the conclusion that this or that statement is not merely less than clear, it is part of an overall program.
The pope has been eminently clear that he does give 100% support to the new model of the Vatican II Church. When he was invited by his hand-picked interviewer to offer even the tiniest reservation or criticism of Vatican II, he resolutely declined. So one must interpret his statements within that context, the context he himself has established.
When the anser comes back as no, then what?