Given his mis-education, and taking into account his stated intention to teach in accordance with the Faith, it is objectively unclear if the pope has ever understood fundamental Catholic teaching as much as our five-year-olds do.

Since [practicing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs] are virtuous in other areas of their lives, and know the doctrine, can we say that they are all in error, because they do not feel, in conscience, that their relationships are sinful? And how can we act pastorally so that these people feel, in their way of life, called by God to a healthy affective life that produces fruit? Should we recognize that their relationships can open up and give seeds of true Christian love, such as the good they can accomplish, the response they can give to the Lord?

To "defect from the faith" is to be guilty of either heresy or apostasy. Rather than use both of those terms, the law simply uses a single word to encompass the meaning of both of those more specific words.

You seem to think that "to defect from the Catholic faith" is synonymous with "to defect from the Catholic Church." But that is clearly wrong, which you can see by looking at Canon 194 §1.2 again,

Here is the relevant part of the Canon:

Meg, Canon 194 §1.2 refers to two different possible defections:

1) a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith
OR
2) a person who has publicly defected from the communion of the Church;

If to "defect from the Catholic faith" means the same thing as to "leave the Church" (as you seem to think), what does to "defect from the communion of the Church" mean?

Angelus, it is no use to explain to Meg.  I already showed her black and white evidence that leaving the Catholic Church is not the exclusive meaning of defecting from the Catholic Faith.  She refused to accept that black and white evidence.

If formally leaving the Catholic Faith by means of giving a public defection statement is not the exclusive means, then canon law would state that. It does not. So we have to go with what is stated, as it is stated. No "explanation" that you provide changes that simple fact. 

Where does the canon state that "publicly defects from the Catholic Faith" means "formally leaves the Catholic Church"?

Meg, the problem is not with the definition of the word "defect." The problem is that Canon 194 tells us what the defection is from, specifically:

EITHER
1. from the Catholic faith
OR
2. from communion of the Church

So, in Canon 194, the verb "defect" applies to both cases. Each case is different. Defection from "the faith" means either "heresy" or "apostasy." Defection from "communion of the Church" means "schism."

Neither of those things means what you claim it means. You say that you mean "formally leaving the Catholic Faith by means of giving a public defection statement." The concept you are referring to is called a formal "defection from the Catholic Church." That concept is discussed in the Vatican docuмent that I linked to above.

Meg, a person who is a formally, publicly, and obstinately rejects a de fide teaching of the Catholic faith (e.g., denies that divorce and remarriage is a mortal sin that prevents a person from worthily receiving the Eucharist) no longer has any legitimate authority to "teach" Catholics. He is a heretic. It doesn't matter if he is a school teacher, a theologian, a priest, a bishop or "the Pope."

Canon 194 says that he automatically loses his office. The seat in that office becomes "legally vacant" automatically.

You seem to be saying that if "the Pope" told everyone, definitively, that Jesus was not God, he would still be the Pope, as long as he didn't also formal make a declaration that he was leaving the Catholic Church. And you, Meg, would be obliged to continue to call him "the Pope." Is that what you would do, Meg?