Just some canon lawyer splitting hairs.
CC
CDF is generally staffed by theologians, not canon lawyers. Note that the CDW (also not canon lawyers), had ruled the other way under JPII, though both agree on lack of liceity.
When two Roman Congregations disagree, things start to get interesting. My instinct is to go with the CDF of Francis over the CDW of JPII, but I don’t think I would label the other position indefensible, which means I wouldn’t condemn someone who opted to conditionally rebaptize these priests, whether from a firmly held opinion that the CDW was right, or failing to reach the point of being absolutely certain that the CDF had definitively settled the issue (I think that they have attempted to largely settle the issue, but if asked, the CDF would freely admit that they have not definitively settled the issue).
It would make a good paper topic. Hard circumstances make for bad judgments, but good papers. I hope I never am put in a position where I have to make the judgment call.
(ebb—good article, with better background than the Detroit case. I imagine that some people have been digging around and trying to figure out what is going on.)