A READING FROM THE SECOND LETTER TO TULSA.

Ref: Dom Mark Kirby, OSB, formally a priest of the Diocese of Tulsa; now a priest of the Diocese of Meath.

​

Dear Bishop Konderla,​

​

I am in receipt of the letter dated January 21, 2022 from Señor González, the erstwhile vicar general of the Diocese of Tulsa, to which I now hasten to reply. In fact, the reply from the Diocese of Tulsa stands in the stark contrast to the on-going silence from the Ordinary of the Diocese of Meath, a certain Thomas Deenihan to the known matter of Dom Mark Kirby’s misconduct within his diocese.

And, these evidence-based allegations pertaining to Dom Mark Kirby were repeatedly brought to the attention of Tom Deenihan. But, by virtue of his failure to apply the dictates of Canon Law, Tom Deenihan, is now dragging the Diocese of Tulsa into this saga. However, that does not excuse the misconduct of Dom Mark Kirby, while a priest of the Diocese of Tulsa and further misconduct as a priest of the Diocese of Meath.

It is noteworthy that Señor González that holds a MDiv from St. Meinrad School of Theology in Indiana; a STL (Sacred Theology Licentiate) and STD (Sacred Theology Doctorate) in Spiritual Theology from the Pontifical Institute of Spirituality “Teresianum”.[1] But, it is salutary to highlight that Señor González does not hold a pontifical degree in Canon Law. Unfortunately, the letter from Señor González begets more questions than answers, and, these further questions are set out, hereinafter.​

​

In his letter of reply it is conspicuous and I would submit unconscionable that Señor González does not answer any of the reasonable or proportionate questions that I posed within my initial correspondence with the Diocese of Tulsa. Moreover, I now wish to put you, Bishop Konderla, some additional questions, and I trust you will be forthcoming with answers. And, by the present, I respectfully suggest that it is wholly incorrect for Señor González to state that “there is no present canonical concern that involves the Diocese of Tulsa”.​

​

Did your predecessor in office, Bishop Edward James Slattery, by a Decree, erect the Monastery of Our Lady of the Cenacle, in accordance with Canon 312 within the Diocese of Tulsa with the view that the experimental institute (in the future) gaining the status of a monastery of Diocesan Right? Did Bishop Slattery sign a Decree to this effect on August 4, 2009? Does the Diocese of Tulsa now formally deny that this monastery was canonically erected within the diocese by the aforesaid Bishop Slattery?​

​

For the avoidance of doubt, I am satisfied that: a) the Monastery of Our Lady of the Cenacle was canonically erected by Bishop Edward James Slattery; b) the said “monastery” was located within the Diocese of Tulsa, and, c) at the time Dom Mark Kirby was subject to the canonical jurisdiction of your predecessor, the said Bishop Edward James Slattery, by virtue of Dom Mark Kirby’s incardination as a priest of the diocese.​

​

In my possession is irrefutable evidence that establishes that Dom Mark Kirby OSB, was incardinated as a priest of the Diocese of Tulsa. Does the Diocese of Tulsa formally deny that Dom Mark Kirby was incardinated as a priest within the aforesaid diocese?​

​

I have knowledge of sexual misconduct involving Dom Mark Kirby involving a former aspirant to the religious life within the so-called Monastery of Our Lady of the Cenacle. This so-called “monastery” was physically located within the canonical territory of the Diocese of Tulsa.​

​

As previously stated, I have knowledge of sexual misconduct that took place in the abovesaid monastery. Moreover, these allegations are personally known (as I stated in my first correspondence to this diocese) to a Benedictine religious superior; they are further known to a monsignor who is Washington DC-based. Hence, I am not repeating unfounded allegations. Thus, I would respectfully submit that the actions of Dom Mark Kirby should be a source of legitimate concern for this Diocese of Tulsa and by extension the Irish-based, Diocese of Meath.​

​

Therefore, one does not need to be an attorney to recognise that the Diocese of Tulsa is vicariously liable for the actions of its clergy. And, it is important I bring to your attention that the allegations that are known to me and time-barred by the twelve (12) year statutory bar in the state of Oklahoma.​

​

It is salutary to highlight that these allegations/disputed acts took place before Dom Mark Kirby became incardinated as a priest of the Diocese of Meath during the episcopal tenure of Bishop Michael Smith. Presumably, Bishop Edward James Slattery gave Dom Mark Kirby a letter of good standing to permit him become incardinated as a priest of the Diocese of Meath; because, according to my sources (three (3) priests within the Diocese of Meath, its then Ordinary, Bishop Smith, did not incardinate Dom Kirby into his diocese, ad experimentum. ​

​

I have been contacted by a former religious confrere of Dom Kirby, who suggested to me that Dom Mark Kirby was removed by a Decree of the Holy See and incardinated into the Diocese of Tulsa with the expressed approbation of Bishop Edward James Slattery. Is this true? If you are not willing to answer the question, I am content to write to the Abbot General of the Cistercians of the Common Observance, Dom Mauro-Giuseppe Lepori, O.Cist, to ascertain the reason(s) why Dom Kirby left the Cistercians!​

​

To be clear, I am asserting that I have credible knowledge of sexual misconduct perpetrated by Dom Mark Kirby during his time as the religious superior of heat experimental foundation that were subject to the immediate jurisdiction of the then Bishop of Tulsa, Edmund Slattery.​

​

Bishop Konderla, in light of the fact that Señor González sent me a letter that in effect a supercilious and dismissive reply that did not answer any of the substantive and legitimate questions that were posed in my initial correspondence — it is difficult to take seriously his observation that the “Roman Catholic Diocese of Tulsa & Eastern Oklahoma take seriously all allegations of abuse and stands ready to work with competent civil and canonical authorities to address any issue”. Did you personally review and approve the letter of reply? And, was the text of the letter approved by Tom Deenihan, Ordinary of the Diocese of Meath?

​

It is unfortunate that the Diocese of Tulsa has been dragged into this shambles, however, this can be attributed to the lamentable and demonstrable failures of Tom Deenihan. In his capacity as the office-holder of Ordinary of the Diocese of Meath; he has consistently and contumaciously failed to undertake his pastoral responsibilities. May I respectfully apprise you that Tom Deenihan appointed a Trappist Abbot to conduct a visitation of Silverstream Priory, the then Dom Richard Purcell, OCSO. The said Dom Purcell was known to be a frequent visitor to gay houses of ill-repute in a manner not dissimilar to the now disgraced Monsignor Jeffrey Burrill; hence, he was the “ideal” candidate to “investigate” Dom Kirby, because birds of a feather flock together.

​

If the Diocese of Tulsa is serious about these allegations of sexual misconduct that I can substantiate; you, Bishop Konderla will provide written answers to my previous questions. Then, the potential complainant can take credence that his complaint will be taken seriously by the Diocese of Tulsa. It is not guaranteed he will come forward, however, the defensive and supercilious reply from Señor González was certainly not positive or encouraging. ​

​

Because, I believe transparency is good for the church I will place this letter on my blog. However, as I have previously stated I am known to be a man of my word and, if you request, I will keep your reply confidential.​

​

In any event, the scandal that is Silverstream Priory is not going to ameliorate by the inaction of Mr. Deenihan, and I would suggest that it would behove both of you to have a constructive conversation; because the longer Dom Kirby is permitted to masquerade as a priest in good standing; he will continue to be a source of scandal and derision for the Irish Church.​

​

With an assurance of heart-felt prayers, I remain​

​

Sincerely yours in Christ,​

​

+ Pat Buckley.​

​

Cc:​

​

His Excellency, Archbishop Christophe Pierre, Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America.​

​

His Excellency, Archbishop, Jude Okolo, Apostolic Nuncio to the Republic of Ireland.​

​

Thomas Deenihan, Ordinary of the Diocese of Meath.

[1] http://biblioteca.teresianum.net/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=159289 Accessed: January 25, 2022.

​