A claim by a lay philosopher that something has been infallibly taught is not the same as an actual infallible teaching, and if you even casually follow Catholic debates, you will find a lot of conflicting claims about what has an has not been infallibly taught.

Arguably, the most these writings about what has been implicitly infallibly taught and therefore cannot be changed by a Pope despite the absence of an explicit dogma tell you is what the author is very concerned that there is an insufficient commitment to among the heirarchy and probably a risk of imminent change by a Pope, which the author is lobbying against.

(Or, as in this case, what has recently been actually changed by a Pope that the author wishes everyone to pretend has not.)

People can argue whatever they want in an editorial, but I will take the word of the pope and the catechism when it comes to the question of, "what is the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church on X?"

Well I certainly can't blame you for that. However, it's far from clear whether the change to the catechism can even be reconciled with prior teachings at all. I only linked to one article among many, but there is considerable confusion about this change throughout the church and Pope Francis has not really offered any clarification.

> Well I certainly can’t blame you for that. However, it’s far from clear whether the change to the catechism can even be reconciled with prior teachings at all.

If one views the argument that the prior teachings were infallibly proclaimed as incorrect, than there is no need to reconcile them; the prior teachings were simply in error.

Unsurprisingly, Francis has not only identified the previous approach as in error, he has both explained where the error is and provided an (unnecessary) explanation of what led people to make the error.

> there is considerable confusion about this change throughout the church and Pope Francis has not really offered any clarification

No one is confused or has any need of clarification. “It is per se contrary to the Gospel” isn’t the kind of statement that leaves a whole lot of room for different readings.

What there is is disagreement.