The author gives me no reason believe his allegation because his article is filled with logical fallacies. Robinson may very well be outside the norms of Romanist orthodoxy but I wouldn't take this author's word for it. But then again that's not the point, is it?
Sure it’s the point. My point. Which is: you have no standing to ascertain whether or not the retired Bp. Robinson is radical or not, so your opinion is of no value. Your concern for “poor Mr. Robinson” is laughable on its face. Consider me laughing.