What doubt? The Bishop silenced Fr. Altier, halted his ability to communicate, and now chooses not to explain why by citing "...this decision are within the context of a bishop’s relationship with his priests. It would be most inappropriate to discuss them with others.
Ha, ha, ha, ha! That's a thigh slapper.
The benefit of the doubt here ought to go to Fr. Altier, whose words obviously touched a raw nerve in the chancery. Maybe you should read Fr. Atlier's words and judge for yourself why anyone could find offense rather than defending a bishop who only wants to protect his own "authority" and prerogative for pushing a good priest around while allowing all manner of other transgressions to float on by...
I agree with you. It is important too, that no matter how we view the situation that Father A. does not become a cult hero or the Bishop a caricature for villiany.
The priest took a vow of obedience. The vow was not optional on the Bishop having to be 100% right in all his decisions.
We should remember that God will not be silence because a radio minsitry ends. We should remember that examples of faith, humility and patience and trust may bring more to the Gospel than any fine words.
Feel free to grant the benefit of the doubt, but at times doing so is to ignore a bit of the reality. There is lots of history here, and this Bishop has a temper. The suggestion he is doing this silencing for the benefit of the priest is BS.