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:
1. This person is suffering from a reversible, severe, disabling medical condition, involving severe nerve and muscle pain in both arms and 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.
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 executive in the St. Louis corporate office for Ascension, 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. This executive who responded, per his Linked In Page, was recently the COO for the entire corporation, as I understand.
If the CEO of a "Catholic non-profit" made around 10 million, in one year, how much do you think the COO 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.
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.
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.
44. This person 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 in some detail the conduct by the two priests at the religious community, and complaining in detail 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. The overall lawsuit actually will go above and beyond this case, and focus on a pattern of emails sent to the 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: I am in no way making a judgment of persons, in this blog post, about these grievances).
P.S. To address my fellow local Latin Mass Catholics, rest assured none of these cases involved priests of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, or are about priests offering the Latin Mass at diocesan parishes.
Also, to address the Bishop and Diocese, this blog post in no way represents the opinions about this case of the people of the FSSP parish, or the diocesan Latin Mass communities.
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.