How is this in particular “over the top” ?
People shouldn’t be defended - or blamed - for no better reason than that they belong to this or that group. That having been said, categories such as idolatry, orthodoxy, or what-have-you mean little in practice until they are applied. And in practice, no one on earth except that man knows his own mind - so, that something looks like idolatry, does not make it so. And if a man is not being idolatrous, he can’t be corrected for it.
Unless one knows otherwise, or has a very strong & well-founded reason to think otherwise, one must always begin by putting a favourable construction on what one sees. This is basic Catholic morality.
The problem with the description is that it is incomplete; for unless you know what this man’s intentions were, it is meaningless to say what he was doing, because the intention decides the moral position of the person doing the act. That’s why all deliberate homicide is not murder: someone dies, but that does not by itself tell us anything about the intention of the person causing the death; which is why murderers are (rightly) punished, & soldiers are (rightly) rewarded.
Idolatry cannot become a morally good act - it is evil, because intrinsically disordered, no matter what our intentions; but, what can change in it, is whether it is blameworthy in the person doing it - IOW, whether or not that person is guilty of idolatry. So someone who has not been instructed otherwise can without blame carry out a materially idolatrous act; the act is wrong in itself, but the doer is not guilty of idolatry. If the person is uncertain whether he is doing something idolatrous, he would be sinning if he did not form his conscience before acting; it is a sin to do anything one is not morally certain is good. So if one is not certain whether it is morally right to visit the sick, whether at all or on a particular occasion, one would certainly sin by doing so.
So while it’s easy to see how this man might seem to be doing something idolatrous, it is far from clear that he was. Only he could tell you what he meant.