[ultima ratio]

In my view Loyalist is correct in his reading between the lines. Do you really think a chancellor gets in the middle of an ecclesiastical firestorm to "express sympathy" on his own behalf? There is no way this was done without the Bishop's knowledge and prompting. Nor is an expression of concern for the "psychological well-being" of Fr. Z not another way of saying the priest was presumed to be unbalanced. If you think this was a sincere expression of concern for Fr. Z's mental health, you don't appreciate the depth of the animus against traditionalism in some quarters.

This is a pattern in dealing with obstreporous orthodox priests--it has happened before with other clerics who don't follow the liberal playbook. Remember the priest who went through this sort of thing in Arlington, not too long ago? How about the priest suspended in Erie for joking about his lavender-soaked seminary training? Same thing--subtle smear campaigns on the part of bishops that go far beyond the evidence of priestly wrongdoing. What is interesting is that in none of these incidents were there violations of the Catholic faith. In fact, if there had been apostasy or even heresy involved, these same men would have been treated far more lightly. No, in each case the suspension was to punish the priest for affirming his traditional moral perspective.

[St.Chuck]

If you think this was a sincere expression of concern for Fr. Z's mental health, you don't appreciate the depth of the animus against traditionalism in some quarters.

But I do appreciate the depth of animus against the bishops, I do appreciate the knee-jerk defense of anything remotely resembling traditional, and most importantly I do appreciate your distortions of facts to conform with pre-formed conclusions.