Flashback: Monitor: "[B]e a Man... [A]dmit that your Theory about "Universal Acceptance" is a Fraud or Counter" vs. Skojec: "[C]all him a Liar. At least be a Man about it."
The Catholic Monitor received this request in the comment section from Steve Skojec, publisher of the website One Peter Five, to "feel free to post our entire correspondence" on our give-and take:
I, also, received a request from a new Catholic Monitor reader to give the whole background of the "tit for tat" between Skojec and the Monitor. I will post the latest correspondence between the One Peter Five publisher and the Monitor after the whole story is told about the give-and take which started in the beginning of this year:
The Catholic Monitor received a third comment from the former public relations and (apparent) semantics expert OnePeterFive publisher Steve Skojec that was puzzling.
But before I respond to it I want to say I pray for him. I am praying because I am worried about him and I am worried specifically about his increasing and multiplying of disparagements for what someone is calling the "Skojec Little Book of Insults."
Before I respond to his first and third comments (the second one isn't pertinent) it is important to look at the phenomena that has started to be called the "Skojec Little Book of Insults."
In 2016, the website AKA Catholic was the first to notice the phenomena:
"This morning, a friend called my attention to a post over at One Peter Five wherein Steve Skojec took the opportunity to denigrate the Remnant and Catholic Family News for what he condescendingly called 'excessive snark and polemics.'”
“'It’s unfortunate that trads can always be counted on to warm up the circular firing squad,' he wrote. 'It’s time for us to drop the snark and the sharp elbows and actually gather people in from this storm.'”
"... The reason Skojec decided to take a poke at two of Catholicism’s finest publications isn’t a mystery; he made his motives entirely plain when he immediately went on to say:
"There are probably any number of reasons why 1P5 has, in just two years, become one of the top three mainstream traditional Catholic publications online (in terms of audience size), but I suspect our attempt to find balance in our approach and not treat those who don’t yet see the point we’re making as the enemy are a part of that."
"If there is anything amazing here, it’s the shamelessness and ease with which Skojec can engage in cringeworthy acts of self-promotion, and it’s nothing new."
"Neither is his willingness to exploit an opportunity to bash what he clearly sees as competition (not their ideas) for almighty “audience size” and the benefits presumably derived therefrom; even if it means launching a calculated attack against those who are clearly on the side of the true Faith and have always treated him with every kindness." [https://akacatholic.com/proud-and-puffed-up-skojec-exposed/]
At the time, Chris Ferrara called the as yet unnamed "Skojec Little Book of Insults" a "circular firing squad":
Reply Chris FerraraSteve Skojec•3 years ago "Oh, I see. You get to belittle the Remnant for its excessive snark and polemics and boast of your own popularity because 1P5 is just so much more respectable, you see, and when I defend the newspaper I write for against your snide put-down this proves your point?"
"The only one who convened the circular firing squad here is you. We never said an unkind word about 1P5, and I have linked to it many times in articles for the Remnant."
Before I get to the first and third comments I believe I owe the Remnant a apology for the headline "Remnant & Skojec are Wrong in saying Francis is same as Benedict & John Paul II" because for the most part only two of its writers appear to take the extreme positions of the OnePeterFive publisher: Hilary White and Robert Siscoe.
Skojec's first comment at the Catholic Monitor puzzled me because he wrote "You know, Fred, research isn't that hard. I'm not claiming it as infallible. That would be absurd."
Here is what he wrote in the pertinent part of the post:
"This is why the Church teaches that it is infallibly certain that a pope universally accepted is the pope. Francis was universally accepted — as Robert Siscoe said, this isn’t mathematical unanimity, but practical universality. John of St. Thomas explains what universal acceptance consists of:
'All that remains to be determined, then, is the exact moment when the acceptance of the Church becomes sufficient to render the proposition de fide. Is it as soon as the cardinals propose the elect to the faithful who are in the immediate locality, or only when knowledge of the election has sufficiently spread through the whole world, wherever the Church is to be found? I REPLY that (as we have said above) the unanimous election of the cardinals and their declaration is similar to a definition given by the bishops of a Council legitimately gathered. Moreover, the acceptance of the Church is, for us, like a confirmation of this declaration. Now, the acceptance of the Church is realized both negatively, by the fact that the Church does not contradict the news of the election wherever it becomes known, and positively, by the gradual acceptance of the prelates of the Church, beginning with the place of the election, and spreading throughout the rest of the world. As soon as men see or hear that a Pope has been elected, and that the election is not contested, they are obliged to believe that that man is the Pope, and to accept him.'"
The problem is that Steve says "if the explanation of John of St. Thomas is correct" and he assumes it is correct thus infallible, but the only proof he gives is the John of St. Thomas quote.
Skojec in his post writes:
"This is why the Church teaches that it is infallibly certain that a pope universally accepted is the pope." But then tells me at the Catholic Monitor: "I'm not claiming it as infallible." Why is he saying "the Church teaches that it is infallible" then saying "I'm not claiming it as infallible"?
Now lets go to the third Skojec comment where he says "Fred, this thing where you misread and misrepresent me is starting to be a pattern. I didn't say they were the same." But on Twitter he said in answer to the question "You think he [Pope Benedict XVI] agreed with ANYTHING Francis has done?" Skojec said "Everything":
Skojec thinks Benedict "agreed" with "everything" that "Francis has done," but apparently for the sake of semantics thinks he has to say "Fred, this thing where you misread and misrepresent me is starting to be a pattern. I didn't say they were the same."
Remember what semantics is:
"An argument, or a type of guarantee that the outcome of your statement can be taken in two or more ways which will benefit you in either way it’s perceived. The *careful* use of semantics can be applied to situations which allow you to be right in any reverse query."
Here is the semantically phrased comment of the OnePeterFive publisher:
"Fred, this thing where you misread and misrepresent me is starting to be a pattern. I didn't say they were the same. I said we don't arrive at Francis without JPII, and that their differences are more of degree than of kind."
"There are certainly incongruities between their teachings, but these are not irreconcilable. As I read somewhere last year, it's a Mensheviks/Bolsheviks situation. JPII, Benedict, and Francis are all revolutionaries, but the former two were significantly more moderate than the latter."
"As Benedict wrote in his manipulated, but later fully-published letter about the work of Pope Francis, 'The small volumes show, rightly, that Pope Francis is a man of profound philosophical and theological formation, and they therefore help to see the inner continuity between the two pontificates, despite all the differences of style and temperament.'"
Sorry, Steve, but if Benedict "agreed" with "everything" that "Francis has done" then they are the same. Skojec sounds like Francis who said that diversity of religions is only God's permitted will to Bishop Athanasius Schneider, but on paper says it is God's positive will. That is why he is called the public relations pope because he know how to use semantics like a public relations expert.
Steve and his close collaborator Hilary White need to know that words are not semantic games we can play with without disaster such as the following:
Did White's 2017 Twit bring about this Skojec Twit: “I don’t care what that meansfor papal infallibility” which means that he doesn't care if "Bergoglio lacks the grace of office...[because of] perhaps some violation of conclave rule, or perhaps some deficiency in Bergoglio’s acceptance of the election."
The Roma Loluta Est website agrees with much that Steve says about Benedict not still being pope, but it admits that it is possible "granting arguendo that it is evident Bergoglio lacks the grace of office, etc., it does not necessarily follow that Benedict is still pope. That is to say, there might be other reasons that Bergoglio is not a valid pope, without assuming Benedict is still pope (e.g., perhaps some violation of conclave rule, or perhaps some deficiency in Bergoglio’s acceptance of the election":
"6. As Msgr. Henry Gracida argues on his blog, abyssum.org: If Christ did not accept the resignation of Benedict as valid, because the act itself was not canonically valid per canon 188, then Christ would be obliged in justice to deprive Bergoglio of grace, so that his lack of being pope be MOST EVIDENT to all with Faith, Hope and Charity. But it is MOST EVIDENT to everyone, even non Catholics, that he has NOT the grace of God in him or in his actions. Ergo, either Christ is unjust, or Christ is just. He cannot be unjust. Ergo, Bergoglio is not pope!”
"O’Reilly replies: The argument is fallacious. While it may be valid in logic to say that if we accept the premise (i.e., Christ did not accept Benedict’s resignation) as true, then it necessarily follows Christ would deprive Bergoglio of the grace of office, etc. However, the argument in reverse does not necessarily follow. That is to say. granting arguendo that it is evident Bergoglio lacks the grace of office, etc., it does not necessarily follow that Benedict is still pope. That is to say, there might be other reasons that Bergoglio is not a valid pope, without assuming Benedict is still pope (e.g., perhaps some violation of conclave rule, or perhaps some deficiency in Bergoglio’s acceptance of the election (see Curiouser and Curiouser: Who Dispensed Jorge Bergoglio SJ from his vows?, etc)."[https://www.google.com/amp/s/romalocutaest.com/2018/11/25/against-the-arguments-]
In the post "Curiouser and Curiouser: Who Dispensed Jorge Bergoglio SJ from his vows? (See: Curiouser and Curiouser: Who Dispensed Jorge Bergoglio SJ from his vows?)" the Roma Loluta Est website makes the strong case that Bergoglio possibly might not be pope because it appears no one dispensed him of his Jesuit vows.
This gets us to the second point of my article in which Steve claims with Robert Sisceo that it is a "infallible certain[ty]" that despite much evidence of a unlawful conclave election that Francis is a 100% for sure a valid pope the SAME as Benedict and Pope John Paul II.
The problem apparently is Siscoe, who is Skojec's mentor in the "universal acceptance" claim, is possibly either a poor scholar or possibly a bit disingenuous in his leaving out the second part of a quote by a Doctor of the Church.
He says "peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope who was not legitimately elected... nevertheless becomes a true Pope... [by] universal acceptance... curing any defects that may have existed in the election... Here is what [Doctor of the Church] St. Alphonsus taught":
'It is of no importance that in the past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterward by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would become the true Pontiff.'" (TrueorFalsePope.com, "Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a Pope," 2-28-19 & 3-20-19) [read this whole article here]
The problem with Siscoe's quote is he leaves out the very next sentence:
"'But if for a certain time, he was not accepted universally and truly by the Church, during that time then, the pontifical see would be vacant, as it is vacant at the death of a Pope.' 'Verita Della Fede', vol. VIII, p. 720.'" (CathInfo.com, "Contra Cekadam by Fr. Francois Chazal," December 2, 2017)
Did Siscoe leave it out because he is a poor scholar or for some other reason or because it said "for a certain time"?
What does "for a certain time" mean?
Is that "certain time" immediately at the conclave or is it a few years after the conclave?
Does this possibly mean that since Francis "afterwards... for a certain time... was not accepted universally... then, the pontifical see would be vacant"?
Francis is not "accepted universally."
I am honored to know a successor of the Apostles, Bishop Rene Gracida, who questions the validity of Francis and is calling for the cardinals to investigate if he was "lawfully elected."
Moreover, Siscoe can't have it both ways in his quotes when they apparently contradict each other.
In the above same article he quotes John of St. Thomas saying:
"[T]his man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church, is the supreme pontiff."
(TrueorFalsePope.com, "Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a Pope," 2-28-19 & 3-20-19) [read this whole article here]
This quote of John of St. Thomas agrees with renowned Catholic historian Warren Carroll's declaration about valid popes having to be "lawfully elected":
Carroll explicitly says that what matters in a valid papal election is not what some theologians say, canon law or how many cardinals claim a person is the pope. What is essential for determining if someone is pope or antipope is the "election procedures... [as] governed by the prescription of the last Pope": "Papal election procedures are governed by the prescription of the last Pope who provided for them (that is, any Pope can change them, but they remain in effect until they are changed by a duly elected Pope)." "During the first thousand years of the history of the Papacy the electors were the clergy of Rome (priests and deacons); during the second thousand years we have had the College of Cardinals."
"But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses. These methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed. A Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope." "Since Antipopes by definition base their claims on defiance of proper Church authority, all have been harmful to the Church, though a few have later reformed after giving up their claims." [http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/antipope.txt]
But getting back to Siscoe's selective quote of St. Alphonsus, a good place to go to find out what the Doctor of the Church really meant is to go to a scholar who quotes him in full.
This is Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira who Siscoe respects as shown by his website:
There is good reason to respect de Silveira's scholarship has he himself explained:
"In the 1970 Brazilian edition of my study of the heretical Pope, in the French edition of 1975 and in the Italian in 2016, I stated that on the grounds of the intrinsic theological reasons underpinning the Fifth Opinion I considered it not merely probable but certain. I chose not to insist on the qualification 'theologically certain' for an extrinsic reason, namely, that certain authors of weight do not adopt it.43 This was also the opinion of the then Bishop of Campos, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, as expressed in a letter of 25th January 1974, when he sent my work to Paul VI, asking him to point out any possible errors (which never took place), expressly stating that he referred to the study 'written by lawyer Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, with the contents of which I associate myself .'”
Here is what de Silveira say in his book "Implications Of New Missae And Heretic Popes":
"On this same sanatio in raclice by virtue of the acceptance of the Pope by the whole Church, Saint Alphonse of Liguori writes, in less heated but perhaps even more incisive terms:
“It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff. But if during a certain time he had not been truly and universally accepted by the Church, during that time the Pontifical See would have been vacant, as it is vacant on the death of a Pontiff’ (2).
"4. The Election of a Person who Cannot Be Pope
"The designation, as Pope, of a person who cannot occupy the charge, would constitute a special case of dubious election. For it is a common opinion (3) that the election of a woman, of a child, of a demented person and of someone who were not a member of the Church (a person not baptized, a heretic, an apostate, a schismatic) would be invalid by divine law.
"Among these causes of invalidity it seems to us that it would be necessary to distinguish those which would admit of a “sanatio in radice” from those which would not. A woman could not become Pope under any hypothesis. But the same thing would not apply with a demented person, who could be cured; with a child, who could grow; with a non-baptized person, who could be converted.
"This being laid down, we ask: in the hypotheses of invalidity which admits of sanatio in radice , would the eventual acceptation by the whole Church of the invalidly elected Pope remedy the vices of the election?
"A complete answer to this question would require a detailed analysis of each of the cases of invalidity. And this would exceed the objectives which we have set for ourselves.
"Such being the case, we shall only consider the hypothesis which is most relevant to the perspective in which we place ourselves: The election of a heretic to the Papacy. What would happen if a notorious heretic were elected and assumed the Pontificate without anyone having contested his election?
(1) Billot , Tract de Eccl. Christi, tom. I, pp. 612-613.
(2) Saint Alphonse de Liquori , Verita della Fede, in “Opera...”, vol. VIII. P. 720, n. 9.
(3) See: Ferreres , Inst. Canonicae, tom. I, p. 132; Coronata , Inst, luris Canonici, vol. I, p. 360; Schmalzqrueber , lus Eccl. Univ., tom. I, pars II, p. 376, n. 99; Caietan , De Auctoriatate..., cap. XXVI, n. 382, pp. 167-168.
187
"At first sight, the answer to this question is, in theory , very simple: since God cannot permit that the whole Church err about who is her chief, the Pope peacefully accepted by the whole Church is the true Pope (1). It would be the duty of the theologians, on the basis of this clear theoretical principle, to resolve the concrete question which would then be put: either proving that in reality the Pope had not been a formal and notorious heretic at the moment of election; or showing that afterwards he had been converted; or verifying that the acceptation by the Church had not been pacific and universal; or presenting any other plausible explanation.
"A more attentive examination of the question would reveal, nevertheless, that even on purely theoretical grounds, an important difficulty arises, which would consist in determining precisely what is the concept of pacific and universal acceptation by the Church.
For such acceptation to have been pacific and universal would it be enough that no Cardinal had contested the election?
Would it be enough that in a Council, for example, almost the totality of the Bishops had signed the acts, recognizing in this way, at least implicitly, that the Pope be the true one?
Would it be enough that no voice, or practically no voice had publicly given the cry of alert?
Or, on the contrary, would a certain very generalized though not always well defined distrust be sufficient to destroy the apparently pacific and universal character of the acceptance of the Pope?
And if this distrust became a suspicion in numerous spirits, a positive doubt in many, a certainty in some, would the aforementioned pacific and universal acceptance subsist?
It is obvious that the renowned theologian de Silveira does not think that St. Alphonsus taught what Siscoe claims he taught that "peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope who was not legitimately elected... nevertheless becomes a true Pope... [by] universal acceptance... curing any defects that may have existed in the election... Here is what [Doctor of the Church] St. Alphonsus taught":
'It is of no importance that in the past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterward by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would become the true Pontiff. [The rest of the quote of St. Alphonsus is left out.]'" (TrueorFalsePope.com, "Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a Pope," 2-28-19 & 3-20-19) [read this whole article here]
Does Siscoe think that "peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope who was not legitimately elected... nevertheless becomes a true Pope... [by] universal acceptance... curing any defects that may have existed in the election" includes "curing" such "defects" as:
- "a special case of dubious [unlawful] election. For it is a common opinion (3) that the election of a woman, of a child, of a demented person and of someone who were not a member of the Church (a person not baptized, a heretic, an apostate, a schismatic) would be invalid by divine law." - Renowned Catholic historian Carroll explicitly says that what matters in a valid papal election is not what some theologians say, canon law or how many cardinals claim a person is the pope. What is essential for determining if someone is pope or antipope is the "election procedures... [as] governed by the prescription of the last Pope."
"... But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses. These methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed. A Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope."
On top of all the evidence above even if in a parallel universe "universal acceptance" was infallible or certain then it still doesn't work. Francis is not "accepted universally."
I am honored to know a successor of the Apostles, Bishop Gracida, who denies the "universal acceptance" of Francis, questions the idea of "universal acceptance" and is calling for the cardinals to investigate if he was "lawfully elected." Bishop Gracida declared:
"I am in receipt of an email from Steve Skojec, publisher of the website OnePeterFive in which he defends his posts in which he argues for the validity of the election of Francis the Merciful on the basis of the 'universal acceptance' of Francis’ election by the world’s Catholic population."
"The idea of “universal acceptance” of the election of popes of the past may have had it’s origin in the first centuries of the Church when popes were chosen by acclamation of the assembled citizens of Rome, and perhaps later when the princes and kings of Europe decided on the legitimacy of papal contestants in the time of the Avignon captivity of the papacy."
"But the idea of “universal acceptance” as the principle determining the validity of Francis’ claim to the Chair of Peter is absurd in this day of instant electronic communication. There is not a world-wide Pew or Gallup poll that can determine the degree of “acceptance” of the Bergolian regime as valid by the world’s Catholic population."
"From the moment that Francis appeared on the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica improperly dressed and accompanied by men of known or suspected homosexual orientation many Catholics besides myself were shocked and dismayed."
"Almost immediately almost every word publicly uttered by Francis shocked Catholic sensibilities, such as telling the woman with several children to “stop breeding like rabbits.” Many Catholics withheld their “acceptance” and adopted a wait-and-see attitude."
Francis is not "accepted universally." But, even more important, it is obvious that besides "acceptance" a valid pope needs to be "lawfully elected." Finally, I ask Siscoe and Steve to specifically answer if Francis was not "lawfully elected" then does a "peaceful and universal acceptance" overturn a unlawful election?
More importantly, why are Siscoe and Skojec apparently so afraid of a investigation by cardinals since they continually ignore or avoid addressing the subject by the "universal acceptance" mantra?
I ask both to please give a specific answer to why they are apparently so afraid of a investigation.
Now, finally, for the latest correspondence which started because of this article "How many Dr. Kwasniewskis does it take to Change a Light Bulb?':
How many Dr. Kwasniewskis does it take to change a light bulb?
Two: One to change the light bulb and one to change it back.
How many thought polices does it take to screw a light bulb?
None: There never was any light bulb.
In the serious side, please pray for Dr. Peter Kwasniewski. I consider him to be a man of great learning and courage especially for signing the Open Letter.
After this piece was posted began the recent email correspondence between Skojec and myself:
On Jun 1, 2019 7:03 AM, Steve Skojec wrote:
Culture of fear, eh?
Has it occurred to you, Fred, that perhaps Dr. Kwasniewski is simply concerned about expressing his mind clearly? As someone who publishes him on a regular basis, I can tell you he makes iterative revisions to many of his pieces, sometimes even after they're published. He's a very particular thinker, and wants to get things right.
On a topic this important, I think that's an admirable trait.
Steve Skojec
Publisher & Executive Director
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019, 5:33 PM Fred Martinez wrote:
Steve,
I agree. Dr. Kwasniewskis expressed himself very clearly in his revision from "who have proved in detail" to "who argue" and from "persuaded me otherwise" to "gave me much to think about."
Best,
Fred
On Jun 2, 2019 7:17 PM, Steve Skojec wrote:
You should just come right out and call him a liar. At least be a man about it.
You need to come out about it and admit that your theory about "universal acceptance" is a fraud or counter what we have thrown in your face.
Be a man about it and don't run away hiding from everything Bishop Gracida and I presented to you. I dare you to do a piece countering us point by point on IP5.
PS- It appears you didn't get the sarcasm in the reply I send you on your email to me on Dr. Kwasniewski.
Deliverance Prayers II The Minor Exorcisms and Deliverance Prayers compiled by Fr Chad Ripperger: Breastplate of St. Patrick (Modified) I bind (myself, or N.) today to a strong virtue, an invocation of the Trinity. I believe in a Threeness, with a confession of an Oneness in the Creator of the Universe. I bind (myself, or N.) today to the virtue of Christ’s birth with his baptism, to the virtue of his crucifixion with his burial, to the virtue of his resurrection with his ascension, to the virtue of his coming to the Judgment of Doom. I bind (myself, or N.) today to the virtue of ranks of Cherubim, in obedience of Angels, in service of Archangels, in hope of resurrection for reward, in prayers of Patriarchs, in preaching of Apostles, in faiths of confessors, in innocence of Holy Virgins, in deeds of righteous men. I bind (myself, or N.) today to the virtue of Heaven, in light of Sun, in brightness of Snow, in splendor of Fire, in speed of l...
Here are five really short and easy to answer dubia questions which hopefully aren't too complicated for Steve Skojec, publisher of the One Peter Five website, to answer. To make it really easy for the publisher of One Peter Five it has been formatted so that he only has to answer: yes or no. 1. Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales said "The Pope... when he is explicitly a heretic... the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostolic See." Was St. Francis de Sales a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no. 2. "Universal Acceptance" theologian John of St. Thomas said "This man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church is the supreme pontiff." Was John of St. Thomas for saying "the supreme pontiff" must be BOTH "lawfully elected and accepted by the Church" a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no. 3. Do you think that a "supreme pontiff...
During a recent interview on the Grace Force Podcast on YouTube, Exorcist Fr. Chad Ripperger provided updated information that the prayers he officially recommends for the laity to say with regard to the election, President Trump and our country are the two prayers posted below. https://youtu.be/UKrLr4jW0Eo First of all, it is very important to start by saying that the usual means of receiving merit and graces are of paramount importance. That is, remain in a state of grace, recite the rosary daily, attend Mass as frequently as possible, receiving frequent communion, and frequent confession. Father Ripperger mentions that we should offer all these things up and ultimately to be praying for an "honest, fair, and just election"..."and "for Trump's protection." He references his book, Deliverance Prayers: for Use by the Laity, and states, "there is a prayer, and this is the one that I'm going to recommend because it's the one...
Please feel free to post our entire correspondence, Fred. I think the context would be informative for your readers, if you're done self-aggrandizing.
Comments