It is all that (the effects and causes you list in your last sentence), but it is also more than that.

1.  Negativity has a profound and insidious influence in our spiritual lives, disposing us eventually if not sooner to reject graces God is trying to make available to us, not to mention often not recognizing opportunities to pray for graces.

2.  Dwelling on what is bad about the Church or the hierarchy or particular clergy -- despite so much of it in fact being bad -- is unhealthy for our spirituality because it disposes us more to even mild forms of demonic influence than if we minimize our fixation on the deficiencies of others and situations.  This is called custody of the mind -- averting our attention from the imperfections in liturgy, disappointments in those or in whatever high standards we have for traditionalist priests.

I think this latter sentence is a special problem for trads because we count so much on our priests to right the wrongs in the See and in parishes.  We may not even realize we're putting unjust and unrealistic expectations on our priests, which then can lead us predictably to a discouragement that is out of proportion to reality.  

#2 can lead to obsession -- as well as sometimes being a sign of it.  And obsession is always disproportional by nature.  Obsession also blocks the action of grace because it leaves us tied to extreme focus and mental activity.  We must practice custody of the mind so that we can be receptive to grace whenever and wherever God wishes to extend it.  Being overly suspicious of a priest for an arbitrary reason is an example of lack of custody of the mind.

Don't think this person thought the refusal to allow a recording was a heresy, but I think they are onto something.
They are onto a certain cultish behavior of some priests. The same cultish and secretive behavior that lead to the SSPX apostasy.

That doesn't even make sense!

If there was even 1% of cult thinking in the priest in question (I'm part Irish, let's stop beating around the bush and just say his name: Bishop Zendejas) why wouldn't he WANT and even INSIST that we record and distribute his sermons? If this was about ANY kind of cult, including the cult of personality, recording and making sermons available would be the prime directive.

And how can you compare Bp. Z's policy on recording sermons with the SSPX? They couldn't be more exact opposites! The SSPX new direction, under Bishop Fellay, is about compromising on principles in order to get greater numbers, to get more people in the pews so they can "save the Church". If Bp. Z had even 1% of that thinking, wouldn't he be recording EVERY SINGLE SERMON so they could be distributed to others, and generate as much fame as possible?

The SSPX is all about fame, popularity, numbers, maximum influence, etc. now. To maximize a priest's influence, you want to reach those who can't make it to your Masses. A priest only has 24 hours in a day to talk to people, travel, say Mass, and basically influence people or build his fame. The best way to expand this is to have a book/sermon/website apostolate where people all over the country can reach or listen to "you" 24/7.

I would say Bp. Z's insistence that no one record his sermons is the exact OPPOSITE of this.

You can disagree with Bp. Z about his sermon policy -- THAT much is open for debate. But as for the two arguments you gave above? They DO NOT HOLD WATER from a reason or logic perspective, and that isn't open for debate. Those 2 arguments don't work at all, and that is cut-and-dried, case-closed by reason of simple logic and reason.

Now the question of Bp. Z being "right" about not recording/distributing his sermons -- THAT is open for debate.

A person can disagree with Bp. Z about something like the recording of sermons -- but that doesn't mean you can throw just anything at him, any negative charge at all, whether it makes sense or not!  Why don't you come up with a VALID argument that actually holds water? For example, you could say he's over cautious or paranoid. I would still disagree with you, but at least that argument would make sense.

It's probably a good idea that +Z doesn't allow his sermons to be recorded. In the past I've seen his sermons picked apart and criticized mercilessly here on the forum by the anti-Resistance forum members who flourish here. 

The SSPX still says that it is getting pleas for priests from all over the world but just does not have the priestly resources to meet them. Is this true? What I have from at least one quarter is that the SSPX now wants its chapels to be self sufficient financially.
I personally dont believe that many are asking for SSPX priests. Thanks to Fellay's assistance in " freeing the Mass" (!) there are Insult Masses all over the place performed by laymen in disguise

As for secretive, that is a load of hogwash.

Bp. Z is not secretive. He says public Masses in at least a half-dozen locations.

There is no law that says a president must publicize his tax returns, and there is no evidence of any financial crime by Donald Trump. Yet the whole Democratic "team" or party believes Trump is a criminal (on faith) and is completely upset that he won't release his tax returns. They're taking serious action against him right, much worse than the mere words I have seen online criticizing Bp. Zendejas.

Likewise, there is no moral principle, much less Church law or tradition, that a priest should record and distribute his sermons. In fact, if anything, there is a tradition AGAINST it. The fruit (good) of a sermon comes from God's grace, not the words themselves. And a priest often tailors his sermon for the particular audience.

The priest has to pray and sacrifice to get fruit from his activity (including sermons). Read "The Soul of the Apostolate". A priest doesn't get an automatic 10-fold return on his prayers and sacrifices just because he posts his sermons online. Understand now?

This is so true. The Bishop told us if anyone wants to come hear him, let them come. The Mass is open to all, so clearly there is no secret. It is not his fault people cannot travel to him or he cannot be everyone at once for everyone. I do not remember reading on the internet years ago about anyone from Los Gatos complaining they cannot hear the sermon from St. Marys, or someone from St. Marys complain they cannot hear the sermon from Arcadia. Sure, it would be a nice to have more sermons, especially from a priest you particularly like, but to say "If I cannot hear this particular priest's sermon, then he must be a cult leader" is a foolish thing to say.

It's probably a good idea that +Z doesn't allow his sermons to be recorded. In the past I've seen his sermons picked apart and criticized mercilessly here on the forum by the anti-Resistance forum members who flourish here.

True. I remember the resistance was highly critical in the early years when it was leaked that the SSPX priests had been cautioned by Menz not to allow their sermons to be recorded for that very reason. It was decried on the fora as evidence of their decline and untrustworthiness. Just sayin'...

Woaahh! slightly touchy there Matthew!

There were good reasons I did not mention names.

One of these is because the behavior mentioned is not limited to one cleric alone.

Cultish behavior= centralising, attempting to control where not necessary.

There are grades of it. One can be a little bit cultish, or very cultish etc. etc.

So you can allow people to come to Mass= good.

But then attempt to control every narrative on the internet about you, even down to not allowing pictures on the internet except in limited circuмstances = bad.