Rise Above, Part 4

See parts 1, 2, and 3 below.  This is part 4.  I want to talk to people going through extreme hardship, in which desolation outweighs consolation, in which those who are prejudiced or even worse indifferent to helping you through your plight far outnumber those who look at you in a fair and balanced way, and do care.  Not merely with a word or two, but with consistent action. 

You want to fly like an eagle but feel imprisoned in a dark dungeon under the Earth, in part by those problem people, the crows.  There is a way out.

First and foremost there is the way of Christ.  To offer your cross daily, in remission of the punishment due to sin, but even more to store up eternal treasures and rewards in heaven.  But especially to follow His example in dealing with enemies.  To be patient with them, to fraternally correct them but not excessively, to accept the crosses they cause you which God allows through the virtue of meekness, and most of all to forgive them. 

That will lead to escape from their torments, by Rising Above them, setting you free.  From them, and their effect on your mind. 

Rise Above them and your dark place.  Last summer my wife and I interviewed the traditional Benedictine sister who had cared for Sr. Whilhelmina in the last years before she died.  I asked the sister “Considering the readers of the blog will be reading this interview (which the Mother Superior had approved), and some of them may be going through extreme suffering in their life, especially those having severe pain, if Sister Whilhemina were alive right now sitting here, what would she say to those people?”  Keep in mind Sr. W is now widely considered to have a miraculously incorrupt body, to be a saint, and the cause of many medical miracles.

The Sister answered without hesitation as if she immediately knew the answer, saying “She would say to go to your Mother, to Mary.”  She then paused a moment and said that Sr. W would also say to be devoted to prayer itself, to have a devotion to a daily schedule of prayer.  

She said she remembers  when caring for Sr. W in her last period of life, asking her for one piece of advice to help her at the time being a novice to become a good nun.  She said she expected her answer to be something like focus on humility or charity, but instead she advised her to focus on daily piety, that this seemed profoundly wise.  This sister was telling us, and you the reader, and me, especially those going down a dark tunnel,, so to speak, that the key to dealing with it all is not only prayer,  it is a devotion to a daily prayer schedule itself, like a monk or nun, or priest, but of course tailored for the lay state.

The third order of the SSPX gives a good structure for its members: daily rosary, daily 15 minutes of mental prayer or spiritual meditation, and twice daily praying the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary. 

But at the least, prayers right out of bed, morning prayer, prayer before and after meals, ejaculatory prayers (like the eastern Jesus Prayer, or the Hail Mary), crossing yourself passing a cemetery or a Catholic church, evening prayer, and prayer right before you sleep.  Ideally, following Catholic tradition and not novelty.  

For me, this interview, what this nun said she thought the sainted Sr W would tell people going through extreme hardship, hit home as a revelation.   Everything we need, including the ability to Rise Above the hardest of situations, comes from God’s grace.  And God’s grace comes from a personal relationship with Him in which we submit ourselves in trust of Him through prayer.  But human nature tends to not commit itself daily to a structure of prayer; in other words, we all tend not towards just following a good routine by making good daily choices everyday, against the weak inclinations of our fallen state.  So we need a pre-planned, consistent daily, schedule, but also to subordinate ourselves to that schedule as a daily Rule of life.  

The result is you will be able to Rise Above all hardship at least internally if not also externally.  It’s a hard fact of life, not strictly taught to me growing up, or in my adulthood by the Church (traditional side vs. the navus ordo side), that this is key to Rising Above hardship.  Without it, it is very difficult to Rise Above.  With it, it is much easier to Rise Above, if not a certainty you will. 

There may be some of you currently gravely grieving the loss of a family member, going through severe illness, or severe financial hardship.  You might be confined to a bed or chair.  You might be forced to live in a nursing home.  You might feel utterly alone on this planet.  

Rise Above.  Through prayer.  Through a daily schedule of prayer.  Through devotion to that schedule.  That is a lesson I’ve recently more maturely learned, thanks to Sr. Whilhelmina.

Psychological Meditation for Mental Health. My Thoughts on Buddhism

Buddhism began as a mixed bag.  There were bad and false elements, and there were good and true elements.  Buddha broke way from the religious paganism and oppressive system of the Hinduism of his childhood to focus instead on inner enlightenment and achieving a perpetual state of peace, separate from any orientation (or lack therefore) to deities or religious devotion to spirits.  For him this meant eventually escaping cycles of rebirth and achieving an eternal state of complete happiness. Personally, he being brought up Hindu, and never officially rejecting any form of theism, I suspect he implicitly believed in God on some level, and also did not explicitly embrace total and absolute nihilism of the conscious self or individual person.  The old Catholic encyclopedia has an excellent article on him and Buddhism, which discusses the positive and the negative 

Buddhism evolved beyond the original  teachings of Buddha, especially in northern India, and then across China, Japan, and most of Asia as a very elaborate religious system of pagan, polytheism, to the point of extremely bizzare, esoteric practices, even from an Asian point of view. And that false religion has now been co-opted by the profiteering industry of the New Age movement here in the modern West, such that what is often called Buddhist thought and meditation has little to do with the historical person or original monastic philosophy of life of Buddha.  They co-opted not only the very externally attractive, pagan, overtly religious version of Buddhism seen in counties like Tibet, but the lower level, more philosophical and psychological system created by Buddha himself represented in southern India and certain southeast Asian countries like Berma.

A Catholic of course cannot positively engage with the rituals, religious practices, or opposing religious doctrines of either form of traditional Buddhism, the more religious one vs the more philosophical one, especially in the name of ecumenism, which would be a false ecumenism.  The true meaning of ecumenical is actually referring to theological relations between the Latin Church and Eastern Catholic Churches both in full communion with the Pope, not the relationship of the Church with heretics, schismatics, or oriental pagans. 

On the other hand, since grace builds upon nature, and our understanding of Divine Revelation is assisted by understanding all General Revelation to mankind, especially in the form of Philosophy (this is not only a teaching of the Universal Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas, but of the Papal Magisterium), then we certainly can learn from the Philosophy of Buddha and Buddhism, in particular the more purely, non pagan, non religious system seen originally in southern India. 

If Socrates believed in many gods, Plato believed in reincarnation, and Aristotle’s concept of God tended towards a mechanistic, Deistic version of God, yet the Church has learned much from them, then certainly we can learn from the wise and benign philosopher Buddha and some of his intellectual followers. 

We moderns today need to see things again through the lens of Nature and Human Nature, to be brought back through them, if we are to delve maturely into the Mysteries of the Faith, and likewise make use of what Nature and Human Nature provides us (that is what the Creator provides us by means of Creation) to help cultivate our interior and spiritual life. 

For example, some Catholics, in particular Catholic men, rightly make use of some of the practical wisdom of Marcus Aurelius and Stoicism in how to develop one’s psychological and moral state in daily life. 

In the case of Buddha and philosophical Buddhism, however, we do not have anything equivalent like the medieval Catholic version of Scholasticism that synthesizes the best of western pagan philosophers (like Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle) with the sphere of Faith.  The  bridge between the Christian West and Buddha is either the polytheistic, magical world of Buddhist monasteries, or the New Age movement. 

The reason I think looking to Buddha and the philosophical and practical psychological side of Buddhism can be very useful, for some, that is if we do not engage the religious or adapted New Age aspects of it, is that the modern West is extremely broken not only spiritually and morally, but psychologically.  And for many re-establishing mental health is integral to maintaining their Faith.  

Buddha was a hermit, and then after founding a new monastic philosophical discipline of life, became a monk.  He greatly represents the contemplative life, which St. Thomas taught all activities should be oriented to, that the contemplative side of life is primary for every person, including married people with busy modern lives. 

But the modern mind is not oriented to contemplation.  It is nearly always in a state of obsession, over analysis, excessive focus on the self, and heavy, complicated thought processes.  Our emphasis is on conceptual, logical  thinking that revolves to the extreme around our own ego, and pathologically worries about the distant past and future, more than intuitive, creative thinking about Life, God, and what St. Augustine called the Eternal Now. New Age thinkers like Eckardt Tolle, influenced in part by Buddhism, are then partly right, that much of our psychological problems will be resolved by rising above the ego and perpetual state of analytical thinking (more left brained thinking), and focus more on contemplative and philosophical modes of thinking (more right brained thinking).  But where the likes of Tolle are wrong, and in part Buddha, is that ultimate happiness for you them comes from an eternal extinguishing of the conscious self and cognitive thinking.  

The Catholic Church however teaches, on the contrary, that the perfect man is one who fully knows and loves God through their conscious mind and will in this life and in the next.  That in heaven our ultimate perfected state keeps the self and consciousness intact.  We will not dissolve into a monist (the philosophy that there is only the whole without distinct parts) or pantheistic (the philosophy that God and creature are literally one divine being and essence) reality.  

At the same time, what we learn from Buddha, is the primacy of contemplation and the transcendent.  We learn what our mental state is supposed to look like.  If we were to look into the mind of the average modern man, brought up according to all the philosophical errors of the Enlightenment philosophers, we would see a state of confusion, extreme complexity, obsession, excessive perpetual analysis, and anxiety. In that kind of state, a parent cannot reason well how to discipline their child, or a doctor how to prescribe a proper, holistic treatment plan for their patient.  In that frame of mind, most all of us are fraught on some level by obsession, anxiety, depression, and cognitive distortions of all kind. 

What the Buddhist practice would have you achieve, besides “Nirvana,” which truth be told is at best a partially true ideal yet still vague and nebulous, is a proper state of mind from the time you wake up until the time you go to bed.  A state of mental peace, calm, contemplative thinking, love of wisdom, creativity, wonder, and openness to reality.   The difference is that we Christians have the gift of Faith to know that reality is the Holy Trinity, and divine incarnation of Jesus Christ.  Yet, if we strip away the esoteric and Hindu residual elements and keep instead the philosophical form of Buddhism, we have much to learn how to calm the mind and achieve a proper state of mind.  That would mean leaving aside any nihilism or pantheism, and developing the art of psychological meditation, and meditative practices.  I would argue that with the exponential rise of mental illness in the West, which is largely the result of mental trauma due to the social and moral collapse of society, working on mental health, to treat and more importantly, prevent mental illness (not the same as spiritual illness or lack of faith or prayer) is integral to preserving your sanity and therefore spiritual life as a Catholic.  

And when I look across history and the globe, the best practical example I see of this, despite certain errors (remember Plato, for example, believed in reincarnation), is that of Buddha and his original followers seeking peace through silence and practices designed to calm the mind.

As much as some readers might strongly object to this, this is the reality.  Addressing mental illness and mental health involves both the religious and spiritual practice of the Faith (examples: daily rosary, Divine Office, and spiritual meditation), but also cultivating mental health and tranquility.

We all do this when we take meditative walks thinking about Nature to unravel our obsessive thoughts, creating music or art, or journaling   Sitting quietly and in a still posture, resting the mind, unclogging the mind, re-orienting it to metaphysical reality, simply by focusing on nothing but your breath, is no different.  Except that an entire eastern culture has been cultivating this psychological practice as part of daily life for 2,400 years.

The crux of the matter, however, is how to properly integrate Buddhist-inspired psychological mediation into your daily life without blurring it irreverently with the Faith and spiritual meditation.  If you are too lax in your approach, you could jeopardize your Faith; if scrupulous about it, you may miss out on a critically useful  activity in your daily life, that will not only help you through severe hardships like severe illness (physical and/or mental in nature), but keep you afloat from falling into despair or your typical sins.

So having no personal knowledge of a traditional Catholic expose of Buddhist-style psychological meditation and practical philosophy of life, or a foolish inclination to delve into the occult, I can only glean on my own what to keep and use.  And it is something like this:

If you are going through a dark period of hardship, or even more to strengthen your mind to better deal with such a crisis if/when it should emerge, in addition to the prayers mentioned above, and also the sacraments, every day engage in:

1. At least 15 minutes of Buddhist-style meditation, even better for 30 minutes, and for twice a day.

2. This is not the same thing as your fifteen minutes of “mental prayer” that is spiritual meditation directly praying to God, said at another time each day.    It is a mental health exercise to re-set the central nervous system into the right state and rhythm, while letting your mind open itself to all reality, both divine and created.  

3. Ideally sitting in a quiet place, very still, eyes closed, hands held still in your lap, focusing on your breathing. Alternatively, laying down or taking a slow walk focusing on your breathing and stilling the mind.

4. Whenever the long train of obsessive thoughts  starts emerging into your conscious mind, be aware of them, accept the reality they are tempting you to think on them, but instead immediately re-focus on your breath and therefore let those thoughts drift away.

5. Possibly include a mantra-like phrase, not a Buddhist or pagan prayer, but instead a Christian phrase or just something positive like “I am a child of God,” or “Life is beautiful.”  Per the moral teachings of Buddha (and Christ) keep your focus on charity, love, kindness, peace, forgiveness, and compassion. 

It is not easy to integrate this into your daily schedule, or retrain your mind to do this, but over time your parasympathetic nervous system will re-structure to dominate instead of your sympathetic nervous system. Just imagine how this would help bedbound paralytics cope with lifelong severe pain and immobility, severe mental illnesses like narcissism, schizophrenia, or bipolar, or to use another example to help Christians wrongfully imprisoned in the Siberian gulag do the time without losing their minds…or souls.

We all could benefit from this, to rise above our state of obsession and internal conflictedness, to achieve not only a state of virtue, but of inner balance and harmony.

Rise Above, Part 3

See parts 1 and 2 below.  I have yet to soar with the Eagles, but I keep trying. One. day. at. a. time.

Sometimes Eagles get grounded by the crows, when those crows are so common and pervasive, and if the Eagle is weakened. Even if the Eagle turns to what makes him strong, to Rise Above the crows simply by flying to an altitude at which they can't fly, sometimes the odds are stacked against him, and he is left fatigued and without flight.

But what lays before him is the same instinct, to Rise Above, and so he waits, gains his strength, and plans his escape.  That is to Rise Above once again.

So when they wear you down, exhaust you, oppress you, just give it time, because you are an Eagle, and they are a crow, so in good time you will soar above them once again.  To learn the lesson, to avoid letting them entangle you ever again, if you can help it.

Rise above.  The crows come in packs.  They surround like pests.  But in the end they are weak, whereas you are strong.  In the short term the sheer fact of their numbers and perpetual annoyances might keep you on the ground, but in due time they will tire and give up, and you will fly above and beyond them, back to peace and freedom.

In the mean time, try as much as you can to ignore the crows, to be strong in response to them, to put them back in their place without letting them drag you into a fight, which by their design makes you the loser for getting dragged into it.  Use intelligence, careful use of limited words, and your feet to move away from their flock.  And rest.

And then, when you have rested, and stored back up your energy tanks, rise above.  And when you do it will be like Andy Dufresne in Shawshank Redemption emerging from that sewage pipe into freedom, at the end of the film.

Right now you may be down there stuck in their excrement, in a dark, tight, claustrophobic place.  But stay calm and focused just on what is right in front of you, keep on breathing, praying, planning, and doing your daily work, and then one day soon enough you will Rise Above, and Soar!

Tulsa Catholic Suing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Tulsa, Bishop Konderla, Etc. Regarding Response to Alleged Clergy Abuse/Alleged Ascension St. John's Patient Abuse (Update: the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and Archbishop Coackley Will Be Added to The Lawsuit)

(Update, 3/19/25:  this person's attempt at an intervention and internal resolution ALSO at the level of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City has been brought to an end.  The result is that the Archdiocese, Archbishop, Etc. will now be added to the Lawsuit.  See below for details.  See Sections #44 - 53)

Introduction:

This person at this time will go unnamed, but since one aspect of my role as a Catholic blogger is to be an occasional "citizen journalist," including reporting and commenting on our local Catholic Church, corporately called The Roman Catholic Diocese of Tulsa and Eastern Oklahoma, I am intervening on this person's behalf, considering the nature of their case, and the common good of our local Church. 

I hope this will help raise awareness these cases still exist in the Church, here in eastern Oklahoma, as an appeal to readers to voice themselves to the hierarchy, and to bring about some degree of justice in this case.

I also hope this raises awareness that there is a crisis in the hierarchy that needs restoration, especially since the Council, in the Sacrament of Holy Orders, in which the Holy Orders of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon have commonly been reduced down to something banal, too much like a career serving self interests, which greatly harms the lay Faithful (99.999 percent of the Church) in many ways, especially those who greatly love the Faith and the Church.  Rather than clearly and uniformly transmitting the Catholic Doctrine of the Faith and Ecclesiastical tradition which has always practically held together the Faith, for the salvation of souls.  

I ask all Catholic news outlets, and other news outlets, to report on this. Please respectfully express your concerns to the Chancery, by asking to speak to either the Bishop or the Chancellor.

Incidentally, for all non-local Catholics, as a reference point, this is the Bishop and Diocese who dismissed Fr. Ripperger's Doloran Fathers exorcist society from the Diocese the summer Fr. Konderla was consecrated and installed as the Tulsa Bishop, and then just months later Mother Miriam's Daughter's of Mary Sisters, both already established in the Diocese by Bishop Slattery (RIP), both over the course of about five years, both very  attached to Catholic Tradition and the Latin Mass. 

I can say this having seen a large quantity of hard evidence, primarily in the form of emails, including several long chains of emails of all parties involved, verifying this is ethical to report on here.  I am aware of the details of the Timeline, and list of witnesses.

In order to avoid being wrongfully sued for defamation, or this used unjustly against me in a court of law, I will carefully not accuse here any person of wrongdoing or breaking the law, civil or otherwise, regarding specifically this case, with absolutely no intent to do so in any way whatsoever, nor say one word that could be misconstrued as making an accusation or judgment about what was done to this person.  I will simply report verifiable facts. 

And the first fact is this person is planning to file a lawsuit against the Tulsa Diocese, the Bishop, etc.

I trust the vast majority of readers, once they read the facts of the case, will understand the importance of this, and have empathy for this person.

The Facts of the Case:

Asking the Tulsa Diocese to Intervene Regarding Alleged Patient Abandonment, etc by Catholic Ascension-St. John's Medical system:

1. This person is suffering from a reversible, severe, disabling medical condition, involving severe nerve and muscle pain in both arms and both legs, fatigue, weakness, etc., primarily of psychological origin, originally brought on by a short term, "perfect storm" of extreme stresses, who sought help last Fall from ordained local Catholic clergy with ecclesial authority to intervene regarding:

2.  Being suddenly discharged--in part by means of text messages--from critically needed treatment by a provider at Ascension-St. John's, Tulsa area hospital network, a Catholic, non-profit institution.  Also, being given general statements their charity care benefits had been exhausted. Even though their Ascension charity care benefits were still active, without direct explanation of any kind from the provider themselves, when repeatedly asked in writing, who repeatedly did not respond to written requests for explanations or details about discharge, after over one year of treatments.  

The provider's own supervisor did not respond to repeated emails requesting clarification why the discharge was done, the patient's status, and other standard discharge information.  No option was discussed to continue with another Ascension provider in their system, just a formal, final, and one-sided discharge from that treatment.

This person as a patient had no say in this decision, no complaints had been made against them by Ascension as grounds for discharge, yet still had the financial ability to continue the treatment, if not weekly, based on their siding scale option (an option once texted to them about, around five months prior, all texts saved).

By the way, for all you Ascension Catholic health care workers out there, you know more than anybody how Ascension, even before the Biden administration did, required the vaccine for its employees under threat of termination (I once worked at St. John's - Tulsa in college, when it was under the holy Sister Teresa, long before it was sold to what others call The Borg of Catholic Hospital System.

Ascension Hospital System

One of the Top U.S. Companies to Own Hospitals

And Connected "Physician Services"

Note, every patient has a right to informed consent about discharge details, and not to experience patient abandonment by any health care provider, especially by someone with a professional health care license.  Doing so would violate Catholic moral teaching regarding medical ethics.  I am able to comment on this having a Masters in Catholic Thomistic Philosophy, with two courses in medical ethics, besides medical ethics in the allied health profession program from which I graduated.  

Disclaimer:  this question will ultimately be addressed in court, and I am in no way, shape, or form making this allegation here on their behalf in this blog post, of violation of rights.

3. The provider's own Oklahoma licensing website lists them as having been formally disciplined, having to pay a fine, and take courses in Ethics.  This is a matter of the public record on a state website.

4.  This person then filed a formal grievance with the local Risk Management office of Ascension (the Patient Advocate office repeatedly never replying to emails and voicemails for intervention), who repeatedly in emails did not answer follow up questions, in particular a final request for the name of their supervisor.  Finally, this person was contacted by management to meet with them in the Tulsa area to discuss the grievance, after repeatedly asking, all in writing, for this meeting.

5. This manager is listed as an Ascension executive who told them they would meet with them in person when visiting Tulsa, with a doctor, and denying in writing this patient's repeated requests to have a patient advocate present in the room, in particular their spouse.  They insisted on this patient being alone with the Ascension executive and a doctor they had never met.  The patient complained in writing about this to this manager, who did not allow the request.

Note, according to the law and Catholic medical ethics, a patient, even more so the more vulnerable a medical state they are in, has the right to a patient advocate to be present in this kind of meeting, including family members, including a spouse.  

Disclaimer:  I am in no way whatsoever suggesting here this right was violated, only that this issue and email evidence will be presented in court for them to decide.

Also note that the CEO of Ascension is publicly reported to be one of the highest paid CEO's of any Non-Profit company in the US, reportedly making recently around $10 MILLION DOLLARS a year.  

If the CEO of a "Catholic non-profit" made around 10 million, in one year, how much do you think this executive makes (disclaimer, unknown, you are free to draw your own conclusions, this information will be asked for in the discovery process)?

See the Wikipedia article HERE on Ascension, which states in the "Record Pay for Non-Profit Executives" section about how other Ascension executives have made "millions of dollars a year in direct compensation from the nonprofit."

6.  These incidents were reported to a member of the clergy for the diocese with the authority to intervene, never asking them to ask Ascension to resume the treatment, or for re-application of charity care for the treatment, or to address potential malpractice, but exclusively for the local Church to investigate Ascension St. John's in this case, as an officially Catholic local institution, to ensure Catholic medical ethics, based on Catholic moral teaching about health care, was being upheld in this case.  

Yet, the clergyman multiple times instead raised the other issues stated above, never at one time discussing in any way the question about if the moral teachings of the Catholic Church were being upheld, in response to several emails expressing the concern, including the initial email to the diocese.

7.  Multiple times in writing, they asked the clergyman a) to whom the diocese talked to at Ascension, and what office, b) what was requested or done, c) what steps were taken to ensure Catholic ethics and morals were being upheld in this local Catholic hospital institution, etc, and each time these written requests were unanswered.

8.  This person also asked this clergyman to meet in person (also with their spouse), and they did not respond to that email, nor meet with them as requested.  

The person says they plan to file a separate malpractice lawsuit against Ascension, the provider, their supervisor, and the Ascension executive.

9.  Around this time, this person in crisis contacted several religious communities and retreat centers to attempt to find a place to visit for a few weeks to pray, meditate, de-stress, in order to strengthen their faith and resolve through their illness, and hopefully assist in their recovery.

10. They had the same condition in 2017 that took the better part of a year to fully resolve, yet it occurred again in 2023.  After another long process of specialists and tests, the diagnosis was determined, fortunately with no underlying serious physical disease process.  For several months there was almost a complete recovery, but then a sudden return of all symptoms for several months, and then one month of near total recovery, showing signs of fully recovery in the foreseeable future.

11. Yet, this person and their spouse were assaulted in public late last September, the person committing the assault admitting to the incident to the police, who then described it as being not more than disturbing the peace.  This situation resulted in distress and a full, extreme return of all symptoms at the scene that day, lasting to this day.

12.  Yet, after notifying the Ascension provider in writing about the traumatic event, the following week, that all symptoms had returned, only right after that, after over a year of treatment, despite the ongoing critical need for care, was suddenly ended as a patient as described above.  Not explaining directly to the patient why, or that they ever were finally discharged from treatment, when repeatedly asked them in writing.

13.  This led this person to then contact the clergy in question reporting Ascension, for concerns about violations of Catholic medical ethics, who responded as described above.

Turning to the local Catholic Church for Spiritual Support, Allegedly Was on the Receiving End of Serious Misconduct, of a Psychological Nature, with Lasting Medical Consequences, by Two Religious Priests:

14. Being in a state of mental and extreme physical crisis, this person, having contacted several religious communities, visited a nearby religious community for prayer, stress reduction, peace of mind, and to seek spiritual and psychological support. This was in late October, 2024.

15. During their time there, through prayer, the liturgy, nature, and visiting with guests, all of these factors, and the public ministry offered to guests, helped alleviate symptoms, experiencing a near total disappearance of all pain for one day right after departing from a three day retreat, demonstrating this environment was critical to help them recover.

16.  However, two serious situations occurred involving a priest in the community, which will not be discussed here, but in court, which they addressed later by email to the priest, also addressing past issues, including a similar episode with a similar priest there that involved this person and their spouse.  The priest responded with several concerning emails that will be presented in court.  That is as far as I will say.

17. This resulted in a repeated attempt to contact the superior, also a priest, that was at first unanswered.  Once the superior examined the evidence (especially the emails), they gave excuses for the priest, apparently did not discipline nor correct them in anyway, and instead questioned the emotional state of the person reporting the grievance by referring back to their state of pain affecting their emotional state.

18.  This person had already explained in detail the severity of their medical condition to this superior, in an email, therefore the need for retreats (overnight, and then day retreats), and how they had had a near miraculous disappearance of all body pain and symptoms after the first three days, explaining the critical need for visits, for that environment of spiritual support from the Church.  The emails clearly indicate this person was unable to work, yet stable enough to visit their community.

19.  However, referencing this person's written complaint about the first priest, the superior wrote back questioning if the person was spending excessive time visiting there (after a three day visit, and the next week two day visits, totaling by that time five total days), questioning if they were neglecting family, or neglecting work, even though they had already been told days before about the severity of their condition.  

In the same email, the superior then "suggested" they not return for some time to the community, never citing any improper words or actions by this person, knowing in detail already how the visits had already caused a near resolution of pain and were felt to be  critically needed (documented in their daily journal).

20. The person politely responded objecting, raising these points, the superior responded denying wrong doing on his part.

21. The person wrote back reminding of the details of the grievance, the superior replying with several clear insults over multiple emails, specifically that referenced in an explicitly insulting, disparaging way, this person's mental and spiritual state.

22.  The person then emailed the superior the next day asking for an apology, and then again for a a sit down meeting to resolve the situation, both emails not answered by the superior.

Filing a Grievance with the Tulsa Diocese, Allegedly Experiencing Multiple Acts at the Level of the Diocese, During the Grievance Process of:  Coverup of Serious Clerical Misconduct, Neglect, Acts of Evasion, and Serious Acts of Disrespect.

23.  At this point the person contacted the ecclesiastical authorities, asking for intervention, submitting a report including a description of their need to go on retreats at this community, their medical condition, the issue of having been suggested not to return for a while, a timeline, and the complete exchange of emails between this person and the two priests.

24.  At this point in the Timeline, it is now early November, 2024.  This person sat down with an administrator who oversees complaints, who made several serious statements they considered very concerning.  During the meeting, this person reported perceived serious issues with the words and conduct towards them, discussing in detail all emails and a timeline, witnesses, etc.  They also explained in detail the psychological and medical effects these incidents had on them after the fact, including the details of their condition, and pain levels before, during, and after these incidents. 

After the meeting, this person making this complaint documented the meeting, put the documentation into an email sent to this administrator, asking them to verify or correct it, and they chose not to, but instead responded making a statement of correction to them.  This is a standard form of documentation of a meeting called "memorialization" after the fact, in which both parties typically verify after the fact, so there is an honest, transparent, and factual record of what was said.  This is typical when the meeting is not recorded, or does not have other witnesses.  

25.  At no time after did this administrator offer any assistance by the diocese to this person.  The person later asked authorities for assistance with short-term counseling solely to process through a few counseling sessions the experience with those two priests, and to help them out of their perceived pain response to the incidents at this community.  They did not respond.  When they asked again, having already explained in clear detail exactly why they requested this help, the response was to ask them yet again to explain the need.

26.  This person asked one of the clergyman involved to please correct this lay person administrator who oversees complaints to please apologize for responding to the documentation email with a correction, and for not verifying or clarifying the documentation of the original meeting as to what was said and discussed.  This clergyman did not respond to the written request.

27. This person then called and left a voicemail for one of the clergymen involved, who did not call them back.  They also requested a meeting with them and their spouse, through email, with this clergyman who did not respond.  When later questioned (again by email) why they did not respond to this request, nor meet with them and their spouse, nor call them back, this member of the clergy again did not respond.

28. There are several other details in these exchanges they say will be presented in court.

29. The lay person they did meet with did write a memo to the bishop about this, as they told the person they would do.  Clergy presented the details of the case to the bishop based on this memo.  It was requested (in an email) to have a copy of the final memo, to ensure transparency, and not only was this request not given, but there was again not a response to the actual request.

30.  The two clergymen then talked to the religious superior who denied any serious wrong doing, that is that any "abuse" occurred (apparently did not treat repeated insults by a priest and especially by their superior, also a priest, as serious misconduct by clergy to the laity), and said for this person to contact another priest of their community by email to resolve remaining issues.  At no time from this superior, was there any form of apology given, acknowledgment of wrongdoing made, admitting the effects on the person,  expressing any concern for the person or their well being, nor any empathy or compassion, or taking any accountability.

At no time did any member of the diocesan clergy the grievance was reported to a) assert to this person that any serious clerical misconduct had occurred, or any form of psychological abuse, nor acknowledged in any way whatsoever any psychological and medical effects reported to them, nor give any words of empathy to this person about what was said or done.  This includes by the bishop.

One exception to this was by the central clergyman corresponding with this person about the grievance, giving one singular statement at the end of one email saying the first priest who this person was reporting had "acted too harshly."

Consider that word for a moment, "harshly," which means, in his opinion, the incidents rose to the level of "harshness."  And then ask yourself the question, if a priest treats a lay person and guest of their community with "harshness," is that serious clerical misconduct?

31.  The Bishop asserted, according to the chancery official, to have "no" authority to intervene at all on behalf of this person, with any priest at this community.  This person was told by the lay administrator they met with that the diocese requires background clearance by the diocese for each priest to be able to interact with the public, stating their role is to provide a "safe environment" everywhere within the Tulsa Diocese.

They also stated that all the guests who visit there, and live near there, are the bishop's flock, which they understood to mean fall under the authority of the bishop's care. That is both local Catholic residents, and explicitly stating also the guests as such, that as as guests visiting there, were considered part of the Bishop's "flock."

Note, as a matter of fact, and not personal judgment in this blog post,  the local bishop is their bishop, invested with the divine and canonical authority to, under at least some circumstances, offer counsel, advise, teaching,  correction, or the like, of any priest in his diocese who requires his permission to function as a priest, including when publicly interacting with any Catholic (or non-Catholic) who resides in his diocese.  

"

32.  The main clergyman overseeing the grievance defended and supported the bishop's decision to do nothing, and the assertion that the bishop had "no" authority to intervene about the complaint about the conduct of the two priests. 

As a Roman Catholic who accepts all the Magisterial teachings on the nature and role of a Diocesan Bishop, I profess the teachings of the Church that the local Successor of the Apostles, the local Bishop over the Diocese, or local Church, certainly does have some authority to speak to all priests in his diocese in question, as their Shepherd.  A judge and jury will decide, informed about Catholic teaching.

33.  The chancery clergyman also made a short statement about the community being able to investigate the complaint themselves, and a report sent to Rome, which left this person with the misunderstanding that, in light of the bishop not intervening directly, that the diocese was part of that process sending a report to Rome.  They misunderstood.

34.  This person then summarized their grievance in writing what was done, and the details of the case, and offered a settlement situation including suggesting for the priests voluntary self-discipline, voluntary counseling for the clergy in question, and a general form of restitution that could be offered by the other party based on their own plan for restitution, in whatever form.  

This proposal was not responded to by the diocese, nor by the religious superior.  No proposal was offered.

35. This person then sent two separate emails to the same, main clergyman over his grievance, asking each time several questions about a perceived report sent to Rome, both times the clergyman not responding to either email.  The person says this lack of response or clarification to two such emails clearly expressing the belief a report had been sent to Rome, reinforced their understanding an actual report was sent to Rome, and communicated that to them, since both emails were left unanswered.  No reply was given to correct this person that no report was sent to Rome.

36.  At this point in all these exchanges, it is late December, 2024.  This person then sent emails to the priest designated for them to contact at the religious community, who assured them the superior would respond to their emails, who later never did at any time respond in any way after the grievance was filed with the diocese. To this day. It had been two months since the incidents in question. 

They also asked this "priest contact," by email, to ask other appropriate members of his community to investigate their grievance and the content of the emails sent to them by the two priests in question.  The priest designated to communicate with them, did not respond to this request, nor later follow up with them on their own about the request.

37.  From December, 2024, to March, 2025, this person says they were therefore left with the understanding by the Diocese a report was sent to Rome awaiting the process and outcome.  

38.  In March, 2025, they emailed again the same chancery clergyman asking for an update about the report sent to Rome.  They emailed back saying a report was never sent to Rome, that they never had told them a report to Rome had been sent, and then for the first time, after four months after initially sending the report to the chancery, and after nearly five months since the original incidents (now nearly half a year waiting for some final resolution), suddenly suggested they make a formal complaint with the religious community itself.

39. The person  proceeded to email both the designated religious community priest, and the superior separately, asking multiple times how to file the formal complaint, with no responses.  

This person emailed the bishop and the clergyman again asking them to intervene to simply find out from the community how to file the complaint formally with them, since the community was not responding to multiple requests, receiving (once again) no reply or help from the bishop or chancery.

This was as of yesterday, Friday, March 15th, 2025.  At this point this person realized all attempts at resolution internal to the Church had been exhausted, prompting them to share this case across Catholic media.

40.   During these several months, according to this person, there was little improvement in symptoms, much of the time pain levels being moderate to severe, connected in part to ongoing traumatic stress from these combined incidents, and from this ongoing experience with the Diocese.  All of this was treated in counseling.  

They hoped to get back to near full remission of symptoms, for eventual full recovery, and ability to return to work and regular life, getting weekly therapy from a new provider at a different organization, with frequent use of gym, massage equipment, vibrator plate for reducing severe nerve, neuropathic pain (no nerve damage or nerve impingement present, no serious back issues per repeated MRI's) throughout both legs, physical therapy equipment for manual therapies, prayer, meditation, writing a journal, nature hikes, etc., reporting a new phase of extreme mental and physical crisis since last October, during which time they had sought help and intervention from the Catholic Church. 

They say they could not travel to far off religious communities or retreat centers, or afford the expenses involved, that their only local option had been that nearby religious community where they say they experienced what you just read, feeling not able to return there at this time to get that help they needed.  They say this has seriously impeded their recovery.  They say they record daily symptoms, triggers of symptoms, and progress in their journal.

41.  This month, in March, this person asked the same diocesan clergyman (who had responded saying no report to Rome was ever sent, and the diocese never told them it was) in multiple emails to please explain why he had not corrected their misunderstanding in December that a report was sent, in particular to answer their two separate emails asking details about the report.

42.  At first the clergyman did not answer this question, but then gave a general response that neither answered that question directly, apologized, or acknowledged the stated problem of a) this causing a delay in resolving the grievance process with the Church, or b) that if the person was allowed to continue with the misunderstanding, they could be waiting many months (or longer) to somehow find out no report was ever sent to Rome in the first place.  These concerns were not addressed with any comment.

43. This person then emailed again the designated priest of the religious community, and the superior asking again how to file a formal complaint with their community, each email receiving no response.

Asking the Help of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City:

44.  Having not heard back from the U.S. Papal Nuncio, this person decided to drop any attempt at intervention from the level of the Nuncio or Vatican.  This person then consulted canon law about the role of an Archbishop as Metropolitan over their province, in which the Tulsa diocese is one diocese, which speaks about how a Metropolitan can intervene in dioceses within their province to ensure no abuse to ecclesial discipline has occurred.  Canon law is essentially a higher authority over every bishop, in so far as it is promulgated by the Pope himself who has supreme, universal jurisdiction.

45.  This person then emailed the Metropolitan by means of their secretary, explaining the situation of the two accused priests at the religious community, and complaining in detail about the experience at the level of the bishop and diocese.

46.  His secretary emailed back stating she had communicated the details of the email request to him, and was responding on his behalf.

47.  Again, this was responding to the details of the case in the initial email to the archbishop.

48. The secretary's email, on the archbishop's behalf, stated he has "no" authority to intervene.  He did not say he had the freedom to do so, but was not going to exercise it.  He said he had "no" authority to intervene in any diocese (this includes any diocese in the province). 

49.  SHE ALSO ADVISED THIS PERSON TO BE PATIENT, AND that she had confidence in their Bishop and the main chancery clergyman mentioned, in response to their email already detailing how the Bishop, and these clergymen, and victims rights coordinator, had treated them and their case, asking instead for some kind of help.  

50.  No help was offered of any form whatsoever, to a fellow Catholic, in a neighboring diocese, reporting this to them, not only about the original incidents, but how the Tulsa bishop and chancery responded to the case.  I will let you draw your conclusions exactly what that response is communicating, about being patient, or their confidence in the Tulsa bishop, or the appropriateness of that response considering the nature of what was already being reported.

51. This person then proceeded, leaving a voicemail with the archbishop's own victim's rights coordinator over one week ago, that has not been answered, as well as an email to her also unanswered, asking how to file a complaint with their chancery about the secretary's email, especially considering the context and circumstances expressed in the original email to the bishop, in the way she responded to that, which indicates the seriousness of how the secretary responded, and on behalf of the archbishop.  

A request for the same complaint process was made to their HR department in an email, also awaiting a response.

52. And, they also emailed the Archbishop's Chancellor asking for the same help, with no response (yet).

53.  UPDATE:  3/19/25:  Email Exchanges with their Chancellor:  this person received a final response that the secretary's email was addressed, not giving any details how, about potential wrongdoing (or denying it), any disciplinary action, or any conciliatory words.  You can draw your own conclusion from this. 

One voicemail and two emails to their own victims rights coordinator, to talk about the secretary's email were all not answered.  You can draw your own conclusion from this.

This person had initially asked if the Archbishop had any authority to intervene, his Secretary responding on his behalf with a clear No, that he has NO authority to intervene.  They then emailed the Chancellor later who when responding said the Archbishop had "very limited authority" to intervene.  You can draw your own conclusions from this.

The Chancellor was asked to address the contradiction, between being originally told by the Archbishop a clear, and final NO (the Archbishop had not asked for more details), but now the Chancellor saying the Archbishop has "very limited authority" (which, using elementary logic is a contradiction; either you have NO authority to intervene, or you DO have some authority to intervene, however limited).  The Chancellor chose to not respond to this.

This person asked the Chancellor to meet with them in person to show all the hard evidence and intricate details of the grievances (both about the original two priests, and the Tulsa Diocese), and multiple times asked for a BASIC clarification what authority the Archbishop has to intervene in cases LIKE this.  

The Chancellor chose to not meet with the person, except if they gave even more details than WERE already given.  He insisted on knowing the names of the accused clergy upfront, before even giving a basic clarification, or agreeing to meet.

The person responded they could not AT THAT POINT give the names of the accused, and many more details of the case just to have a clarification about the role of an Archbishop, finally concluding their attempt at an internal resolution was complete.  

They had already given many details:  1) the name of the religious community, 2) number of accused clergy, 3) that misconduct was at the level of alleged "abuse," 4) that they repeatedly had unanswered requests of both this religious community and the Tulsa Diocese to intervene and help find out how:  to file a formal complaint with that community itself (which was, by the way, only suggested months after filing the grievance with the Diocese).  That both the religious community and Diocese never responded to requests begging for this basic information.  5) that Bishop Konderla and the Tulsa chancery had also prior to this acted, allegedly, in a pattern showing coverup, evasion, lack of transparency, and serious acts of disrespect, 6) and that the Tulsa Diocese had on multiple occasions in writing not given answers to questions and request for update about an apparent report sent to Rome (which left them for months believing a report had been sent, when it hadn't).

The Oklahoma City Chancellor himself insisted literally NONE of these are actual "details."

This person kept explaining this (also in detail) to the Chancellor, who essentially kept choosing to not provide ANY clarification about the question at all in any way whatsoever, or to meet with them (and as requested, their spouse), before MORE intimate details were given.  Including upfront the names of the accused clergy, which this person said they felt obliged not to tell them IF the Archbishop had NO authority to intervene (which the Archbishop originally insisted), saying they wanted to share all the details only IF the Archdiocese was able to intervene in the first place, and then provide ALL the details to assist in the investigation/inquiry.

This would be similar to going to a governor and stating that someone had attempted to murder them in their city, but that the mayor and city had consistently acted showing coverup, evasion, etc.  And then the governor's right hand man insists on knowing the name of the person who attempted murder, the date and location, and all the nitty gritty details BEFORE even clarifying whether or not a governor can do anything to intervene about attempted murder in his state, or coverup and evasion by a mayor/city in his state.   You can draw your own conclusions from this analogy.

Consider the Timeline:

a) First, details are given giving clear descriptions of the case, asking if the Archbishop can intervene.  

b) Archbishop Coackley responds with a categorical NO.  He did not ask for more details.

c) This person later, complaining, asks the Chancellor (all fortunately in writing), who now says there is "very limited authority."  They are asked to address the contradiction, and he chooses not to.

d) They ask for a simple sit down meeting, including with their spouse.

e) The Chancellor responds multiple times insisting on MORE details, including the names of the accused, BEFORE they will meet with them OR even give any basic clarification.

f) The person responds referencing the fact of all the details already given.

g) The Chancellor literally responds claiming NO "details" were given.

h) Details WERE given.  If any clarification had been given, then ALL the intricate details, including the names of the accused, would have been shown the Chancellor.

You can draw your own conclusions about this response of their Chancellor.

i) This person then notified them they would be added to the lawsuit (even though the primary complaint is against the Tulsa Diocese, and this religious community).

54.  And, this lawsuit actually goes above and beyond the recent complaint about the two religious priests.  The overall lawsuit focuses on a pattern of emails/formal grievances sent to the Tulsa Bishop and Diocese, for a total of four separate clergy cases, not only this case, reporting clergy behavior, with a pattern of non-response, or in one case a seriously concerning response directly from the Bishop himself, all since 2019 (disclaimer: Again, I am in no way making a judgment or accusations in this blog post, about these grievances, but only stating verifiable facts).

Conclusion:

This person has chosen not to pursue resolution with the U.S. papal nuncio, or Vatican, for reasons that should be obvious considering the current state of the Church, especially the Expose of Archbishop Vigano about massive cover-up of clergy abuse.

They say they have exhausted themselves seeking a resolution with Church authorities, who repeatedly are not responding to them on several aspects of the grievance process.  There is concern about transparency, accountability, respectful communication and treatment of a potential victim of clergy abuse, and prioritizing defending lay Catholics and upholding the Sacredness of Holy Orders, over avoiding legal liability and protecting ecclesiastical careers.  

Archbishop Vigano's report focused on sexual abuse by the clergy, but the systemic problem of clerical abuse, and how the authorities respond to it (re-traumatizing and scapegoating the victim) extends to all forms of abuse of the laity by priests, deacons, and even bishops, or laity under their charge, including psychological abuse which can have real, concrete, serious consequences in the lives of Catholics involved, including adults in a "vulnerable" situation, who love the Faith and the Church.

This is a case of a "vulnerable adult," experiencing serious illness, seeking the help of the Church, yet having to report serious cases,  involving ongoing emotional distress and aggravation of their condition.

This will all one day soon enough, unfortunately, have to be brought before a Tulsa judge and jury to resolve, and the media if they so choose, who cover the docket.  Please pray for this person's peace of mind, recovery, and that justice is achieved.

The authorities have already been asked several times to address the content of the original emails and actions, discuss a civil, private resolution outside of court, which each time was unanswered.  I pray the Bishop and Clergy involved will take to heart the facts of the case, the hard evidence (emails are about as hard, objective evidence as it comes), contact this man, settle this in a respectful way, for their own good, and that of our local Church.

Many people have been injured by the hierarchy, especially during this Crisis in the Church, scattered to the margins or eaten by wolves like lost sheep, when what they needed most are true Shepherds who will not abandon even one sheep.

For questions or feedback, feel free to write me through my wife, at her email:  paixzafra@yahoo.com

Thank you for your time reading this.

Thoughts on Duterte's Arrest

Durterte now sits in a prison in the Netherlands awaiting trial with the International Criminal Court (ICC), for alleged crimes against humanity in his war on drugs.  The globalist, corrupt Marcos family, in collusion with Western Leftists, are accusing Duterte of murder, resulting in his arrest in a Filipino airport.

However, as everybody and their dog knows, he used lawful authority to kill non-innocent drug lords, drug dealers, foot soldiers in the Filipino drug cartel, and anyone in that cartel who refused to surrender, after several warnings.  They have waged a still ongoing drug war against the good people of the Philippines, claiming countless lives, destroying souls and minds, and families, ripping apart the social and moral welfare of once peaceful, village communities.

Note, he is not being accused of killing bystanders or innocent people caught up in the war on the drug cartel.  They are literally claiming that killing criminal murderers is itself murder.  It is absolute moral relativism, calling the good bad, and the bad good.  Everybody and their dog, except the godless narcissists who arranged this, knows that murder is killing someone who is innocent, and that a drug lord, or foot soldier for the cartel, is not innocent.

And the accidental death of innocent bystanders during military raids IS NOT murder.

What of all the people murdered by the Filipino cartel?  The countless lives ruined to drugs?  The actual national security of their country??

Do the Marcos' and their cronies, and the ICC even care?  Their is a legal principle "the facts speak for themselves."  The facts show they do not care.

There are presently two competing political groups in the Philippines, the side that supports Duterte and his daughter who is now the V.P. (this represents most of the country, by the way, who loves Duterte, and for what he did), who are nationalists and more socially conservative, and the Marcos side who are globalists and more socially liberal.

The facts continue to speak for themselves.  Duterte is considered the Trump equivalent for the Philippines.  He is against the globalist elites.  The globalist elites are pushing for more liberalization and leftist control of the world (especially Catholic countries like the Philippines) by means of political war (globalist vs. nationalist) and actual war (NATO/Ukraine vs. Russia [and its social conservatism]).

They tried to assassinate Trump (twice), are probably still trying to assassinate him, because he might stop their ongoing slaughter of Ukrainian soldiers, and escalation to World War III, and now are seeking (unjustly) either the death penalty or life in prison for Duterte.  

For exercising his lawful authority to initiate a lawful state of martial law to protect his country from the drug cartel.

Per my Filipino wife who is following this even more than me, Duterte suggested publicly Marcos could be using drugs, and his wife has a reputation for being addicted to drugs and alcohol.  When a narcissist is exposed, they will later exact the harshest of revenge in the form of "narcissistic rage," so I can see how that comment could have "injured" Marcos so much that he, his regime, and international conspirators, are now persecuting Duterte.

For Duterte telling the media he questioned if Marcos is using drugs.

It would not surprise me.  Just as it would not surprise me if, after having dinner to talk about their political war against Trump/liberty/world peace, Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, and Shumer went down to say Biden's mansion and had a sex orgy, raping sex trafficked children, and snorted cocaine.

At the heart of the Leftist Elites waging war on our planet, is satanism, diabolical narcissism, sexual perversion, drugs, extreme forms of hedonism, and an unbridled lust for power and money.

And the Marcos' are sitting on enough gold, the infamous Marcos Gold, that actually belongs to The People, that if they give it back to the country, and it is properly invested and used, would literally raise the Philippines from a Third World Country, to being comparably a First World Country.

Who does The Gold really belong to?  IT BELONGS TO THE FILIPINO PEOPLE!!!

The Marcos Gold was originally gold hidden by foreign merchants in the Philippines during World War II.  Later it made its way into the hands of Marcos Senior.

Morally, The People had a right to The Gold, a) since no foreign power then or since claims it is theirs, b) it wound up on Filipino land during and after the war which makes it spoils of war, or the financial benefits of victory, and c) considering that it is such a gigantic amount of wealth beyond reason for one person or family to claim for their own in that situation.

I will add a LEGAL reason it belongs to The People:  Marcos Senior actually put in writing, in his Last Will and Testament, to give the gold back to the Filipino people.  His wife was interviewed on TV, showing the will stating this. This remains her position, and ironically the position of Marcos Junior, the current president.

But the issue now is, where is The Gold??  Why is it not being released???

Consider also this:  a) the majority of Filipinos believe the Marcos Gold belongs to the country, that it was usurped by the Marcos dynasty, b) the majority are pro-Duterte, pro-liberty, and pro-nationalism, c) their elites have a lust for power and wealth, wealth being the basis for power, d) and Duterte and his movement (akin to the MAGA movement) are anti-elite.

Duterte (and his daughter, despite my grave reservations a woman be vice president or president), compared to the ruling class, have a simple, down-to-earth background.  They are a Vox Populi, a Voice of the People.

This planet is currently in the middle of a religion-based culture war, and secondarily culture war, between the leftists, globalists, socialists, and secularists on one side, and everyone else on the other side, but especially conservatives, nationalists, traditionally religious people, especially Christians, and especially Catholics.

At the center of this current existential war, who truth be told Archbishop Vigano is one of the most prophetic witnesses in preaching about, according to his Office of Bishop, is the attack on the Catholic Church, especially from within by the Modernists in Power, that is the attack on the Bride of Christ by the "deep church" and "deep state."

This is the same church-state Cabal that essentially funneled $$$$$ (your tax money!) into the pockets of Churchmen in one diocese after the other in the USA, by means of NSAID, itself a pile of gold put together by the Democrats, to the "Catholic" Charities organization.  

We will find out soon how deep this goes, thanks to the high IQ team put together by Elon Musk, literally deputized recently by the U.S. Marshalls Office, to hunt down the criminal elites.  And hopefully that will expose this in the Catholic Church here in the U.S. in every diocese it is taking place, where "Catholic" Charities has its roots. 

There is no way in holy hell that all these factors are not intimately connected, in the current spiritual battle on our planet between the forces of Christ, vs. the forces of anti-Christ, between the Army of Light, and the Army of Darkness.

I support Trump threatening the Philippines over the Duterte arrest, or countries most behind this, with a tariff war, or the like, yet would add to minimize as much as possible secondary suffering to Filipinos.  Tariff the hell out of the Marcos regime until Duterte is returned to the Philippines, or threaten them the hell with it (would be a legitimate "threat') until they do.

And then impeach Marcos Jr., which would make Duterte's daughter president, groom successors to Duterte, keep their movement going, use the absolute force of law to give the Marcos Gold to The People to which it belongs, and then build up materially the Philippines.  It has been actually said, then, that the Philippines is, in principle, the wealthiest country in the world.

My last thought is this:  if a man single-handedly withholds so much money that belongs to the Filipino People that could literally, if wisely used, raise the country out of poverty, saving countless of lives, and saving countless people from living in severe poverty, as in the slums, and holds it over the heads of the people to keep him in power, stringing them along, promising them one day that "pot of gold at the end of the rainbow," then in that case it is not the likes of Duterte who are committing crimes against humanity, but Marcos and everyone who aids him.

Food for thought for family discussion.

Have a pleasant Spring-like weekend.