When the Supreme Pontiff speaks or writes ex Cathedra, he speaks infallibly and what he says is doctrine and it is a case of Roma locuta est Causa finita est. Done finished.
Though being Catholics we will most definitely debate what the latin "really means" in short the Pope only said what we think he said, and we generally think he didn't say what we wanted him to say.
Further when The Holy Father speaks other than Ex cathedra, but speaks and issues the statement as having the force of canon law, we either say the law is too stringent or too lax, it goes too far or not far enough. But it is generally understood that the law will be eternal until a subsequent Pontiff obrogates that particular piece canon law.
Now When the Holy Father grants an indult. If it is an indult we like, we cheer and applaud and support the indult and get very upset when others refuse to acknowledge that the indult was granted to begin with.
And those of us who disapprove of the indult will stand firm and say that it should never have been granted and that it can be struck down and just because it is allowed doesn't mean it should be done.
What's wrong with this?
Scripture to keep in mind
Six things there are, which the Lord hateth, and the seventh his soul detesteth:  Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood,  A heart that deviseth wicked plots, feet that are swift to run into mischief, A deceitful witness that uttereth lies, and him that soweth discord among brethren.  My son, keep the commandments of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother. ***Cf:Douay-Rheims Proverbs 6: 16-20
I declare that I have no intent to acknowledge, distribute or encourage anything contrary to Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and the Apostolic See. I submit myself and all the contents of this blog to the judgment of the Church.