DETROIT (Lepanto Institute) — Following the swift crackdown on the Traditional Latin Mass and the firing of three faithful theology professors, Archbishop Edward Weisenburger of Detroit appointed a new “ombudsman” who was once indicated as a member of the heretical Association of US Catholic Priests (AUSCP).
Abp. Weisenburger entered his new appointment with the force of a mudslide and continues to devastate the Church in his new diocese. His appointment to the Archdiocese of Detroit was among the last of Pope Francis’ official acts before his death. Installed on March 18, 2025, it took Abp. Weisenburger only one month to announce a complete ban on the Traditional Latin Mass effective July 1. Three weeks later, he would sack three prominent and highly revered professors of the Sacred Heart Seminary: Dr. Ralph Martin, Dr. Eduardo Echeverria, and Dr. Edward Peters.
But what’s slipped slightly under the radar is that around this same time, Abp. Weisenburger appointed Fr. David Buersmeyer as the new ombudsman for the archdiocese. Abp. Weisenburger stated in his letter that his duties in this capacity are as follows:
“[H]e will provide a neutral space to discuss interpersonal interactions that may fall short of our expectations for professional and pastoral conduct. If a priest has an interaction with a member of the Chancery staff which, in his estimation, is less than helpful in terms of the Chancery employee’s ministerial employment—or if a Chancery employee has an interaction with a priest which, in his/her estimation, is less than respectful or appropriate—the concerned party can choose to discuss the interaction with the ombudsman. Fr. Buersmeyer will do an informal review of the issue, including an interview with the colleague in question, in an effort to resolve the matter at the source level. If that is not possible, Fr. Buersmeyer will be empowered to escalate the matter within the chancery chain of leadership.”
Looking into Fr. Buersmeyer and his past actions and associations, the Lepanto Institute has serious questions about his qualifications to properly judge such matters within the Church.
On February 7, 2013, Fr. David Buersmeyer signed an open letter from the Association of Catholic Priests (ACP, the Irish version of the AUSCP) declaring support for Fr. Tony Flannery, Fr. Roy Bourgeois, and Fr. Bill Brennan. Fr. Flannery faced excommunication at the time due to his open support for women’s “ordination” to the priesthood and his association with the ACP. Fr. Roy Burgeois was indeed excommunicated in 2008 for refusing to repent and recant his participation in the priestly “ordination” of a woman. And in 2012, Fr. Brennan was forbidden to publicly celebrate Mass or hear confessions because he “concelebrated” a Mass with a woman.
In addition to signing onto a letter along with the heretical AUSCP (see here for more details on the heretical positions of the AUSCP), Fr. Buersmeyer is a long-time financial supporter of the AUSCP. According to our records (obtained from official AUSCP publications), Fr. Buersmeyer made financial contributions to the AUSCP from 2018-2024, such as the one in the image below:
Given AUSCP’s promotion of sacramental “ordination” of women, priestless lay-led parishes, homosexual activism, including homosexual adoption of children, and a host of other deviant ideas and ideologies, there can be no justification for Fr. Buersmeyer’s support for the AUSCP. But according to an AUSCP document from 2015, Fr. Buersmeyer is actually (or at least had been) a member of the AUSCP.
In 2015, the AUSCP published a document titled, “A Request to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Urging Full Restoration and Implementation of the Rite of Penance.” At the top of the second page, the AUSCP thanks its members who contributed to the production of this document, naming Fr. Buersmeyer.
Even if Fr. Buersmeyer wasn’t an official member of the AUSCP, his participation in the production of this document is exceedingly problematic. What Fr. Buersmeyer and the AUSCP are calling for is broader use of “general absolution” – which they call “Rite 3 of the Sacrament of Penance” – which is employed only in emergency situations, such as a sinking ship or a crashing airplane. Essentially, Fr. Buersmeyer and the AUSCP claim that there are too few confessors and not enough time to hear a bunch of confessions, so they propose general absolution as a solution to the problem. And to bolster their argument, they claim that the employment of “Rite 3” would:
“enable penitents to experience reconciliation in and with the community as [an] indication of their reconciliation with the Church and God.”
While not indicated in this paper, the application of this particular form of “confession” would be advantageous to their proposal for “priestless parishes.” If a priest is not regularly at one parish, and since he would not have the time to hear the confessions of all congregants in one weekend sitting, the community aspect of hearing one loud confession while granting one general absolution to all present would save time.
But Fr. Buersmeyer’s involvement with the AUSCP isn’t the only problem. On his own initiative, and in his own words, he has signaled his own support for what the AUSCP is advocating. For instance, following the election of Pope Leo XIV, Fr. Buersmeyer wrote an entry for his own blog (ChurchWorldKingdom.org) asking the question, “What Will the Church Look Like In 100 Years?” Complaining about the Church’s condemnation of Modernism, Fr. Buersmeyer claimed that the Church’s position against Modernism “led to continual suspicion and condemnation of movements and ideas that looked too ‘modern.’”
With this butchered definition of the Church’s defined heresy of Modernism, Fr. Buersmeyer then applies the foundational ideologies of Modernism by seeking worldly notions to
“humbly learn with the modern world what the Gospel should support (for example, human dignity of all, the equality of all men and women, the complexity of integrating into our lives our sexuality and childhood upbringing).” (emphasis added)
Worse still, by employing a methodology of dialogue to draw in certain worldly concepts, he completely blurs “where we draw the line in our dialogue with the modern world.” In each instance of “drawing a line,” Fr. Buersmeyer heavily implies that the things denied by each drawn line is something negative – that we are somehow deficient for having drawn those lines. He wrote:
Some would hope to draw the line quite firmly and quickly and reject the insights of modern science and medicine. No to evolution. No to definitions of brain death given by modern medicine. No to the manipulation of genes and other biotechnology. No to human causation of climate change. No to artificial intelligence. And so on. Others would draw the line firmly when it comes to social issues such as poverty and immigration, economic disparity, peace and justice. They would insist the modern world is structured to favor the wealthy, the first world, the powerful nations. The Church must side with the poor, the excluded, the victims, they would say. Some draw the line firmly in terms of marriage and sexuality. No to gay marriage; no openness to gender fluidity; no full equality of roles between men and women. Others would argue that those are the very social issues that need a more dialogical rather than a strictly anti-modernist stance, where the core of the gospel is firmly shared but in a way that is not simply condemnatory of those who are not living it.
READ: ‘Brain death’ is a fallacy used to prop up the organ harvesting industry
To illustrate his concern with discarding evolution, so-called brain “death,” homosexual “marriage,” gender fluidity, etc., Fr. Buersmeyer affirms that the Church will not waver on abortion or euthanasia, but then wonders if the Church will
“be able to maintain both its pro-marriage stance as a permanent, faithful, open-to-life relationship between a man and a woman and its support of the equal dignity of all human beings, thus finding a way to support gay marriage within society?”
And then, as if recalling his support for Fr. Flannery, Fr. Roy Bourgeois, and Fr. Brennan – who were all disciplined for their participation in and support of women’s “ordination” – Fr. Buersmeyer asks, “What about the full embrace of the wisdom and leadership of women within all levels of the Church?”
Given Fr. Buersmeyer’s involvement with the AUSCP, support for the use of general absolution as a norm, support for priests facing sanction due to their involvement with women’s ordination, and his support for heterodox views regarding human sexuality, it’s hard to find any justification for elevating him to an important archdiocesan post. Considering Abp. Weisenburger’s war on the faithful of his diocese, what has become abundantly clear is that a tyrannical spirit has taken hold of the Church. Our Blessed Lord admonished his apostles not to lord it over the faithful as the gentiles do. He said:
“You know that the princes of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that are the greater, exercise power upon them. It shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be the greater among you, let him be your minister: And he that will be first among you, shall be your servant.” (Matthew 20:25-27)
And St. Peter, speaking to priests, was even more direct. He said:
“Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it, not by constraint, but willingly, according to God: not for filthy lucre’s sake, but voluntarily: Neither as lording it over the clergy, but being made a pattern of the flock from the heart.”
The Church is in turmoil, and it will take humble, holy prelates to set things right. And for that to happen, the faithful must pray daily – especially the Rosary – for our bishops, priests, and the Holy Father. And while we pray for them, we also pray that God will deliver us from tyrants bent upon remaking the Church in their own image and likeness.
