1) Granted, and I apologize for the misreading.
2) And that makes a difference because? The university authorities who appointed him "a few years ago" are still the same, with the same attitudes - that they are Jesuit only increases my distrust, given the more-than-notorious record of the Jesuit order in general and its American branch in particular in the last few decades (cf.Robert Drinian, Georgetown University, etc. etc. etc.).
3) I hope you can spot the logical disconnect between "The professor most vociferously opposed to his nomination calls him an atheist" and "therefore he's probably not an atheist." If I objected to the nomination of, say, kennahijja to teach Lutheran philosophy in a Lutheran university, let alone to have a major influence on the direction of students' studies, on the grounds that she is, a), an atheist, and b) a Marxist, I hope you would not make the howler of suggesting that my mere objection indicates that she is probably none of the above.
4) I cannot believe you take anything that "the university's own spokesperson" says seriously. Surely you know enough of universities to know that, commpared to them, political parties are a paragon of straight talking, correct information, and impartial views.