Interesting perspective. He seems to show some affinity with whom he calls the "Sanbornites", i.e. US sedeprivationists ... just feels that he's making a distinction between valid/illicit rather than material/formal. He made an analogy with material "sin" here, but it's not really the same material/formal distinction made by the sedeprivationists.
I did like it when he denounced Father Paul Robinson as a Modernist.