The issue is actually the unclear statements he made rejecting morality and the necessity of the individual to always seek to conform himself to the moral law, in favor of situation ethics and a declaration that the morality of even an essentially evil act was contingent upon subjective factors. It is true that he did away with the Catholic concept of marriage (and indeed seems to regard cohabitation as the equivalent of marriage) but, more importantly, he attacked the whole concept of the moral law, which should be everywhere and always the same if it is to mean anything.
Of the five dubia or questions asked by the Cardinals, only one dealt with marriage and the other 4 dealt with the moral law in general.
They all stemmed from the marriage question however. And, as you said before you pretended to know the Popes mind and heart...he was unclear. He goofed in my opinion, he knows he goofed and hence rather than argue is going to have the Cardinals act. That is healthy for the Church in my opinion.
I will not pretend to KNOW his heart, but I cannot help but think he has a very loving heart...not for the earthly desires as you imply but for Jesus Christ and the creation.
I do not believe global warming, if it is occurring is man’s fault, but I have long believed good stewardship of God’s creation is a joy in Jesus heart whereas tarnishing (polluting) is a tear in God’s eye.
There are things we can disagree with a person without vilifying him/her. When it comes to the Pope I think it is especially important. God did put him there after all.