I am not sure I understand this. Why are you using today's terminology for something that occurred a decade ago?
It seems pretty obvious that this was a devoted man who had made covenants and commitments to God and to an organization and desired to be true to them.
He also was a man who sincerely sought the mind and will of God as shown by his willingness to stretch his thinking beyond the protocol.
Being the age he was, 84, it is understandable, that he would be attacked not because he was senile but because age is one of our "ism's" in the world. All of which show our disrespect for ourselves as a species and as individuals.
The heartbreak he must have endured due to the outrage of the political and social climate of that time must have seemed very daunting. It is not hard to imagine that his spirit may have been broken which would have led to his body declining as well.
To set this up as if it was planned or to disrespect his reputation is to show a lack of compassion and understanding for the human condition.
I applaud his dedication, his sincerity, his compassion, and his desire that all be treated equally before God.
Again, thank you for the article,