It is true that I object to dubia from the standpoint of optics.  That is, the Pope is the Holy Father.  The bishops went into two synods, and there were two opposing sides.  The Kasperites mustered a convincing majority, but the pope did not want to hand them an outright win, knowing that there was a vocal minority view.  People cite the failure to gain two thirds, but this was legally insignificant--this is not a Council.  The Pope, the Father at the table, tried to express a polite compromise.  These four cardinals are trying to relitigate the dispute, and they want to force the Father to address the issue on their terms.  They want to tie him down to their restatements and definitions.  This is rude!  This is nothing to take away red hats over, but it comes off as imperious and arrogant (unintentionally, I am sure). And I suggest it sets a bad precedent for the use of "dubia" to attempt to cast doubt with papal policies one does not agree with.