Yeah, I was a bit taken aback by that comment also.

It is a sin to wish evil upon someone, and it is a mortal sin to hate someone.

Not so. Wishing evil on someone is not intrinsically bad or wrong, depends what your intentions are.

St. Thomas, II-II, Q. 76:
On the other hand if a man commands or desires another's evil under the aspect of good, it is lawful; and it may be called cursing, not strictly speaking, but accidentally, because the chief intention of the speaker is directed not to evil but to good.

Now evil may be spoken, by commanding or desiring it, under the aspect of a twofold good. Sometimes under the aspect of just, and thus a judge lawfully curses a man whom he condemns to a just penalty: thus too the Church curses by pronouncing anathema. In the same way the prophets in the Scriptures sometimes call down evils on sinners, as though conforming their will to Divine justice, although such like imprecation may be taken by way of foretelling. Sometimes evil is spoken under the aspect of useful, as when one wishes a sinner to suffer sickness or hindrance of some kind, either that he may himself reform, or at least that he may cease from harming others.

To wish another man evil under the aspect of good, is not opposed to the sentiment whereby one wishes him good simply, in fact rather is it in conformity therewith.

You appear to have no notion of the commom good either.

If such immoral pope died, he would go to hell!

Better him to go there than countless souls wouldn't you think?

Exurge - I am glad you brought Aquinas into this, but I disagree with how you are applying him.  Don't forget or ignore that I said that we need to "put this into perspective".  Because, if the man parading as pope were someone committing sins that cry to heaven for vengeance, wishing death could indeed be a mercy.

But, if you listen to what Bp. Sanborn is saying(he is referring to a past pope(s) - that is the question topic - that "are not a danger to the faith"), I do not believe it would be a mercy. He is referring to wishing death upon an immoral pope that is not committing sins that cry to heaven for vengeance.  There is a difference.

Mabel - thank you for the comment and example.  In St. Rita's case, her sons were not in the state of disgrace(mortal/"deplorable" sin) like the pope in question is("deplorable" is Sanborn's wording).  St. Rita's prayer is different than Fr. Sanborn's.  Her sons go to heaven, his pope goes to hell.

Pope Francis knows that he does not have much time, at this point it does not matter if he dies or not, the damage is done, the perve has pretty much accomplished his mission.

And when he dies just wait and see who they have in store for us.

Crossbro - It is culture shock going from Benedict to Francis, and I think that was part of the plan.  Fr. Sanborn gave a talk on the past "pendulum papacy", and I think there is some wisdom in looking at current modernist Rome in that light.  With that said, I wouldn't be surprised if we get a conservatively V2 royal type of Rome next!  

Cardinal Cajetan says this on the matter, in the course of a lengthy argument on why the Church should rely on prayer alone in such a case (he was controverting Gallicans and others who believed it lawful to depose a Pope for some criminal acts of immorality).

Quote

"If you tell me that prayer is but a common remedy to be used against all the ills that afflict us, and that for the special evil that troubles us here we need a proper remedy -- since every effect comes of a proper cause, not merely from general causes -- I reply, in a general way, that the highest causes, although they play the part of common causes in respect of lower effects, play in fact the part of proper causes in respect of higher effects. And that is why prayer, which is to be put among the highest of supernatural second causes, is only a common cause of lower effects; but it is a proper cause and the proper remedy for the highest effects, such as would be -- since it is matter reserved for God -- the removal from this world of a still believing but incorrigible Pope ...

If then, on the one hand, the means available to human effort [providentia humana], even if super-elevated by the authority of the Church, are a force inferior to prayer, appointed as the highest of second causes by God, to whom all creatures, corporeal or spiritual, are subject; and if, on the other hand, a remedy against a bad but still believing Pope is among the highest effects in the Church, it follows that God, in His wisdom, must have given the Church for remedy against a bad Pope, not now any of these merely human means which may avail for the rest of the Church, but prayer alone. And can the prayer of the Church, when she perseveringly asks things needful for her salvation, be any less efficacious than merely human means? Is not the fervent prayer of an individual soul who asks such things for himself, already efficacious and infallible?  'If then the salvation of the Church demands that such and such a Pope should be removed, then undoubtedly the prayer we have mentioned will remove him ...

So, if a Pope hardened in evil ways appears, his subordinates, without leaving their own vices, content themselves with daily murmurings against the evil regime; they do not seek to avail themselves, save perhaps in a dream and without faith, of the remedy of prayer; so that what Scripture predicts comes about by their fault, namely that it is due to the sins of the people that a hypocrite reigns over them, holy in respect of his office, but a devil at heart. . . We have become blind to the point of refusing to pray as we ought, while yet desiring the fruit of prayer; of refusing to sow, while still wanting to reap. Let us not call ourselves Christians any longer! Or if we do, let us turn to Christ; and the Pope, were he frantic, furious, tyrannical, a render, dilapidator and corrupter of the Church, would be overcome. But if we do not know how to overcome ourselves, what right have we to complain of being unable to break through the evils that surround us by prayers that not only fail to rise through our roofs, but do not even mount as far as our heads?

That's very good. Where is that from?

Yeah, I was a bit taken aback by that comment also.

Same here; however, I'm not sure how this proves he is a "fraud" as the OP asserts.