Greetings, parish orphans and retrogrades.

You've noted in the last two weeks that here on rules for retrogrades, I've been covering the Francis Pontificate, I do say Pontificate, friends, in a new light, in an open-minded light, a light so open-minded that some of you have said

that it's too open-minded. Why have I had Ed Maza, Patrick Coffin, who are Beni Plennis, on this show

in the last two weeks, entertaining their points of view, now countering them in some specific ways, but entertaining

them in ways that I wouldn't do with, say, someone who I disagreed with more than Mazza or

coffin, like a bestialist. No point in even having them on. Question asked, question answered.

Because although I am not a Benny Plenness and I say you ought not to be as well, full stop,

there is much to agree with when dialoguing with a Bena Plenness.

Not that Francis isn't Pope.

Clearly, I think it came up very clearly with my good friend Patrick Coffin the other day. That is not a clear set of theories.

There's mutual contradiction all throughout, and that is not the fault of Ed Maza or Patrick Coffin

or any other Benipinist out there. It is the fault of one Mazza or Patrick Coffin or any other Beniplinist out there.

It is the fault of one man, Francis himself.

Francis himself.

He said he wanted to create confusion and he did so.

Today's show is called the 101 outrageous of Pope Francis.

And that's precisely what it is.

I'm going to try to race through these things year by year to show you.

There is a distinction of kind, a distinction of kind between this guy, number 266, and all of the bad popes throughout the first 265 popes of the pontificate.

I said bad popes. Obviously, we already know what the distinction of kind is with the good

popes who are saints. I'm talking about the bad popes that sired children and played fast and loose with the coffers of the Vatican and were involved

in lay investiture in Episcopal appointments and did criminal things. Who cares? Okay. Do you get it?

...