These Last Days News - September 11, 2025
We encourage everyone to share this web page with others, especially bishops and clergy.

‘Dispose after Reading,’ Archbishop Weisenburger’s History of Cover-Up for Clerical Sexual Abuse...

"THEY WILL FALL LIKE ROTTEN FRUIT"
"There are many traitors, enemies of the Father in Heaven, in My Son's houses. They will fall like rotten fruit as We shake the trees, on that day when My Son shall set all to right. All that is rotten will fall! A good tree will not bear bad fruit. By their fruits will they be known to you." - Our Lady, September 13, 1974

FALLEN HIERARCHY
"I shall come soon to cleanse My temples, the churches. I shall cast out you who have given yourselves and set upon My Church a stigma of fallen hierarchy. Awaken from your slumber! Recognize the faces of evil about you, My pastors! Shall you please man, or shall you follow the rule of your God? No man shall save you from judgment. No man shall give you your reward. But satan has set on earth men who shall claim you for satan." - Jesus, November 20, 1975

The above Messages from Our Lady were given to Veronica Lueken at Bayside, New York. Read more

LepantoIn.org reported on September 9, 2025:

By Louis Knuffke

Detroit Archbishop Edward Weisenburger has a history of concealing clerical sexual abuse, according to revelations of a Church-commissioned investigation that examined the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, where Weisenburger served 16 years as Vicar General.

As Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City from 1996 to 2012, Weisenburger not only wielded immense influence—but used it to suppress accountability for priestly sexual abuse of minors. Investigators discovered that he routinely instructed staff to “destroy after reading,” oversaw the mass deletion of his own emails following his departure, and even enabled a defamation lawsuit against an abuse survivor, all while hypocritically claiming to support transparency.

In 2019, the Archdiocese of Okalahoma commissioned McAfee & Taft A Professional Corporation to investigate incidents of abuse from 1960 through 2018.  The McAfee & Taft investigation made over one hundred references to Weisenburger and his interferences. Rather than documenting transparency or corrective leadership, the report reveals actions that strikingly curtailed accountability and obstructed investigative clarity.

Among his last official acts before his death, Pope Francis appointed Weisenburger Archbishop of Detroit, on February 11, 2025, where he was installed on March 18. Within weeks of his installation, Weisenburger enacted a sweeping prohibition of the Traditional Latin Mass in parish churches beginning July 1—allowing it only in select non‑parochial settings—and subsequently dismissed three senior orthodox professors from Sacred Heart Seminary: Dr. Ralph Martin, Dr. Eduardo Echeverria, and Dr. Edward Peters.

Prior to this, as the bishop of Tucson, AZ (2017-2025), Weisenburger notoriously suggested during the 2018 spring meeting of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) that “canonical penalties” – including the denial of Holy Communion – be imposed on Catholics involved in Trump’s border enforcement policies.

In September of 2021, Bp. Weisenburger sent a letter to every priest in the Diocese of Tucson directing them to refuse assistance to those seeking an exemption to COVID vaccine or mask mandates.

Weisenburger is also a signatory on the Tyler Clementi Foundation‘s pro-LGBT statement.

These controversial moves are simply the latest in a history of harming the lay faithful entrusted to his care, as the McAfee and Taft investigation reveals concerning cases of clerical sexual abuse against minors that took place during Weisenburger’s tenure as Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City.

“Destroy After Reading”: A Memo to Dispose of Incriminating Evidence

One of the most alarming findings of the investigation concerns a memo authored by Weisenburger instructing that internal diocesan documentation be destroyed after being read:

As documented in our discussion of Fr. Cowden … we found evidence that during his tenure with the Archdiocese, Msgr. Weisenburger, V.G. … drafted memoranda with the request that all or part of the documents be ‘destroyed after reading.’

In the specific case of Father David Armstead Cowden, the report emphasizes:

The memorandum contains a third page marked “CONFIDENTIAL” at the top and it is a letter drafted to Archbishop Beltran from Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. stating:

My primary concerns about Fr. Cowden are as follows (and I ask that you not retain this document: rather, please dispose of it after reading):

3. I hope that it is only a coincidence that the reported behavior is happening at a time when priests are under increasing scrutiny due to pedophilia issues. While I have no proof of any kind, if there was a problem of this nature in Fr. Cowden’s background, perhaps the current climate has contributed to his emotional state. Again, this may be jumping to a gravely undue conclusion on my part.

At the time Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. drafted this portion of his letter to Archbishop Beltran, there was no documentation in Fr. Cowden’s file alleging sexual abuse of a minor. When asked about the “dispose after reading” letter to Archbishop Beltran that was part of his April 7, 2002 memorandum, Bishop Weisenburger stated that it was not a typical practice of his to draft documents that contained instructions to dispose of the document after reading it.

Despite his claim that the directive was an “anomaly,” investigators raised concerns about the extent of the practice:

However, we found a memorandum prepared by Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. in 2006 regarding concerns over physical (not sexual) abuse of a child by a parent. In a status report, Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. directed the recipients that “Memos should be destroyed after reading.” Our concern is that to the extent that a “destroy after reading” practice was employed by anyone at the Archdiocese, we cannot be certain that there were not other instances in which this procedure was used and the records were destroyed after being reviewed. Neither the Archdiocese nor our firm can review any destroyed documents as part of a complete compilation of information previously available to the Archdiocese.

In a flagrant betrayal of ecclesiastical transparency regarding cases of clerical sexual abuse, Weisenburger was thus responsible for the direct obstruction of future review and accountability, and the obfuscation of internal judgments and deliberations.

Deleted Digital Trails: The Vanishing Emails

Beyond paper files, digital records were also destroyed:

In part because it [the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City] lacks a written record retention policy, the retention of emails and other electronic records is left to the discretion of each individual. Because of this, we learned about systematic deletions of emails and other records that could have related to allegations of sexual abuse of minors. In fact, we did not have the benefit of access to all emails of two of the most significant personnel at the Archdiocese who were heavily involved in many of the allegations of sexual abuse of minors that we identified, investigated, and reviewed.

We discovered that after the departure of Msgr. Edward Weisenburger, V.G. from the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City in 2012 to become the bishop of Salina, Kansas, nearly all of Msgr. Weisenburger’s emails were deleted. According to Kevin Atkins, the Archdiocese Information Technology Officer, there was no policy in place in 2012 for preserving the data of previous employees.

At the time Msgr. Weisenburger, V.G. left in 2012, the chancellor at the time, Loutitia Eason, who served in that role from 2002—2017, was provided access to all of the available emails of Msgr. Weisenburger, V.G., who served in that role from 1998-2012. When we asked whether Msgr. Weisenburger’s e-mails had been preserved, Mr. Atkins stated that he was able to locate only a handful of Msgr. Weisenburger’s e-mails that had been saved to the system, which he provided to us. When we forensically imaged the Archdiocese’s network drives and devices, we were only able to locate a very small number of Msgr. Weisenburger’s e-mails, and far fewer than what we have reason to believe once existed.

During his tenure, Msgr. Weisenburger, V.G. was heavily involved in many of the allegations of child sexual abuse reported to the Archdiocese. In limited instances, copies of email correspondence involving Msgr. Weisenburger, V.G. were printed and placed into paper files, but we believe that there were numerous emails that were never printed and that are now unavailable to us and the Archdiocese because of their deletion.

As a consequence, not only was critical context for understanding internal decisions lost, but investigators were rendered unable to reconstruct timelines and interactions. Most importantly, the email deletions raise serious questions over potential criminal intentional concealment of evidence regarding clerical sexual abuse during Weisenburger’s term of office as Vicar General.

The Mickus Case: Legal Intimidation and Obstruction

Among the cases documented by the McAfee investigation, the Fr. James Mickus case reveals a disturbing and shameful disregard of justice and all sense of moral integrity on the part of the Archdiocese, including Weisenburger as Vicar General. The deplorable course of action undertaken by the Archdiocese included the legal intimidation and targeting of an abuse victim, despite the abuser’s own admission of guilt, for the sake of financial gain, as well as the withholding of information from an investigative review board, and a public lie by the Archbishop in order to reinstate the abuser priest in active ministry. The contempt of justice in the case is indeed chilling.

According to the report, in May 2002, the Archdiocese received allegations of the sexual abuse of a minor. The steps taken in the wake of those allegations reveal a disturbing pattern.

Weisenburger quickly met with the alleged victim and deemed him credible:

On May 29, 2002, an adult called the Archdiocesan Victim’s Assistance Hotline (the “Hotline”) and reported that he was sexually abused by Father James Mickus. The alleged abuse began when the alleged victim was a teenager and continued into his early twenties. Within a few days of the call, Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. met with alleged victim about the allegation. According to contemporaneous documents, Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. found the alleged victim to be credible.

Mickus himself then admitted to the abuse but claimed he was unaware his victim was underage.

According to an internal memo written by Archbishop Beltran and Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. in 2006 (four years after this meeting), when Fr. Mickus was notified of the allegation against him, he said “I thought [the alleged victim] was eighteen when this matter happened but if he says he wasn’t yet eighteen then I’m not going to dispute it or argue about it.” Fr. Mickus then admitted to engaging in sexual behavior with the alleged victim and said he would “accept whatever consequences would follow as a result of his actions.”

When we interviewed Bishop Weisenburger, he said that he remembered the June 2002 meeting with Fr. Mickus but not any specific conversation from the meeting. He said he remembered that Fr. Mickus admitted to sexual behavior with the alleged victim but that it was Fr. Mickus’ belief that the alleged victim was over 18 years old at the time. However, Fr. Mickus would not dispute the alleged victim’s account and felt “terrible” about the allegation, Bishop Weisenburger said. Bishop Weisenburger said that Fr. Mickus’ attitude later changed and he began to fight back against the allegation after he engaged his civil attorney, Stephen Jones.

Rather than ensuring justice for a crime to which the priest had admitted, the Archdiocese proceeded to finance a defamation suit launched by Mickus—targeting his accuser.

On June 27, 2002, the alleged victim’s attorneys sent a letter to the Archdiocese threatening a lawsuit against Fr. Mickus and the Archdiocese unless a settlement was paid. On July 17, 2002, Fr. Mickus filed a defamation lawsuit in Garfield County against the alleged victim, in which he denied the allegation of sexual abuse. According to correspondence from Fr. Mickus’ attorney (Jones) to Mr. Eason, which Stephen Jones later told to us during a telephone conversation, the purpose of filing the defamation lawsuit was to seize the initiative and prevent the alleged victim from filing a lawsuit in what Mr. Jones perceived to be a less favorable venue.

Contemporaneous documents show that Fr. Mickus’ attorney consulted with Archdiocesan attorney and outside general counsel Doug Eason (and possibly Fr. Weisenburger, V.G.) to discuss the legal strategy behind filing the defamation lawsuit against the alleged victim. After the lawsuit was filed, documents show that Mr. Jones briefed Mr. Eason on developments in the case at the Archdiocese’s request.

Additionally, the Archdiocese paid for Fr. Mickus’ legal fees incurred in prosecuting the lawsuit. In January 2003 (while the defamation suit was still pending), Fr. Mickus sent a letter to Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. urging the Archdiocese to continue paying his legal fees. Fr. Mickus wrote that the decision to sue the alleged victim was made with the agreement of the Archdiocese and that this legal strategy had “materially benefited the Archdiocese.”

When the McAfee report was released, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP)—founded by Barbara Blaine in 1988 for survivors of clerical sexual abuse—condemned the financing of the lawsuit as chilling:

Bishop Weisenburger … paid an attorney so a priest could file a defamation lawsuit … despite the fact that the cleric had admitted his actions to them.

Further, the Archdiocesan Review Board, to which the allegation was referred, was left uninformed of crucially important material for the case:

[T]he Review Board did not receive several pieces of potentially material information: First, Archbishop Beltran and Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. did not share with the Review Board Fr. Mickus’ statements to them admitting the sexual encounter but denying he knew that the alleged victim was a minor. In a November 21, 2006 memorandum to Fr. Greg Ingels, Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. described these statements as “quasi-incriminating.” In a December 5, 2006 letter to Fr. Mickus, Archbishop Beltran described Fr. Mickus’ statements at the June 2002 meeting as “exceedingly troubling.”

…The Review Board also did not interview Fr. Weisenburger, V.G., who had interviewed the alleged victim.

In 2003, the Review Board complained to the Archdiocese about the withholding of information in its investigation of Fr. Mikus. The Review Board stated that due to the lack of critical information and the Archdiocese’ obstruction of the case through “legal maneuvering,” it was unable to reach an informed conclusion.

On February 24, 2003, Dr. Dennis Moran, acting chair of the Review Board, sent a letter to Archbishop Beltran in which he expressed frustration that the Review Board’s “efforts to obtain needed information were thwarted at every turn by both parties through legal maneuvering.”

The letter identified several concerns that had gone unaddressed, including Fr. Mickus’ demotion from pastor to associate pastor early on in his career, frequent changes in Fr. Mickus’ assignments during the general timeframe of the alleged abuse, and the nondisclosure of the St. Luke report…

The letter continued, “[i]t is important to be clear that the Review Board draws no conclusion related to the above questions. However, in the absence of information relevant to these questions and in light of the Review Board’s inability to obtain needed information, we can make no recommendation regarding Fr. Mickus’ suitability to return to ministry. It is with some regret and frustration that we provide our findings, or lack thereof, in this matter to you.”

The Archbishop then turned this statement of the Review Board into a positive acquittal of Mikus, publicly exonerating him of the charges of sexual abuse and reinstating him into priestly ministry.

On March 14, 2003, Archbishop Beltran issued a press release reinstating Fr. Mickus to active ministry. In his press release, Archbishop Beltran stated that he referred the allegation against Fr. Mickus to the Review Board, “which, after a careful and critical investigation conducted with sensitivity for the alleged victim, reported to me that it was unable to substantiate the allegation. Based upon [the Review Board’s] findings, and upon the evidence available to me at this time, I find no reason to continue Father Mickus’ administrative leave. I also conclude that there is no evidence to indicate that any child would be placed at risk by returning Father Mickus to priestly ministry.”

Years later, Archbishop Beltran admitted during the McAfee investigation that he lied in the March 2003 press release to justify his reinstatement of Mikus into ministry. Weisenburger was still Vicar General at the time and had personally received Mikus’ admission of sexual abuse. There is no evidence of any objection from Weisenburger to Mikus’ reinstatement.

The McAfee report states:

During our interview with him, Archbishop Beltran admitted that his March 14, 2003 statement was materially false and misleading. Archbishop Beltran agreed that the press release created the false impression that the Review Board had (a) found the allegation against Fr. Mickus to be unsubstantiated; and (b) approved of his decision to reinstate Fr. Mickus. In reality, the Review Board said it had lingering concerns and was therefore unable to issue findings or make a recommendation as to Fr. Mickus’ suitability for ministry.

Having been publicly exonerated through the legal maneuvering of the Archdiocese, Mikus withdrew his lawsuit against his victim immediately after his reinstatement into ministry. According to the McAfee report,

Three days after Archbishop Beltran’s press release, Fr. Mickus voluntarily dismissed his defamation lawsuit against the alleged victim.

Not only did Beltran and Weisenburger withhold from the Review Board Mikus’ open admission of his crime—and Beltran admitted to lying about the Review Board’s conclusion, reinstating the abuser priest into public ministry with no objection from Weisenburger—but the two also withheld audiotapes of phone calls between the victim and Mikus, supporting the allegation of sexual abuse.

In June 2005, and while the second lawsuit was still pending, the alleged victim’s attorneys produced to the Archdiocese audio tapes of two purported phone conversations between the alleged victim and Fr. Mickus. The first phone conversation occurred in mid-2002, after Fr. Mickus had met with Archbishop Beltran and Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. and been notified of the allegation, but before he had gone to St. Luke Institute for evaluation. The second occurred days after he had returned from St. Luke Institute. The file includes transcripts of these recordings.

… Additionally, a January 26, 2006 e-mail from Mr. Eason to Mrs. Eason indicates Archbishop Beltran and Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. knew about the tapes and transcripts no later than January 2006.

We believe the tapes produced to the Archdiocese are authentic and accurate recordings of phone conversations between the alleged victim and Fr. Mickus. This conclusion is based on several factors, including that senior Archdiocesan officials familiar with Fr. Mickus’ voice have listened to the tapes and confirmed that one of the speakers is Fr. Mickus. While these officials are not experts in voice identification, we believe their confirmation supports the tapes’ authenticity. The tapes contain several statements that we believe support the alleged victim’s allegation that he was sexually abused as a minor by Fr. Mickus.

There is no evidence that the Archdiocese took any action on the audio tapes until more than a year after receiving them in June 2005, when Archbishop Beltran learned in November 2006 that the alleged victim was discussing the existence of the tapes/transcripts in public. Again, all senior Archdiocesan officials were aware of the existence of the tapes/transcripts no later than January 2006. The Archdiocesan Review Board, which met regularly, was never provided information about the tapes/transcripts.

There is no evidence that further action was taken at that time by the Archdiocese in regard to the allegations against Fr. Mickus. Fr. Mickus remained an active priest from February 2007 through his suspension in November 2018… There is no evidence that the tapes or transcripts of phone conversations between Fr. Mickus and the alleged victim were ever shared with the Review Board.

Thus, Mikus remained in active ministry for 16 years after admitting to Weisenburger in 2002 to having sexually abused a minor. This was made possible only by a coordinated effort on the part of the Archdiocese to withhold damning information from both the Review Board and the public, to intimidate and target the victim through litigation, and then falsely exonerate the abuser priest.

The Cowden Case: First, Destroy the Evidence, Then, Keep the Case Quiet

The McAfee and Taft investigation also revealed Weisenburger’s role in a sexual abuse case involving a priest providing alcohol to a minor to the point of intoxication.  After learning of the abuse in 2002, Weisenburger failed to report the case to the Archdiocese for further investigation until 2006.  Furthermore, after the allegation surfaced in 2006 he failed to reveal anything to civil authorities.

The first concerns about child sexual abuse against Father David Cowden were documented by Father Edward Weisenburger, Vicar General in April of 2002. Although no explicit allegation had been reported at that time, Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. nonetheless raised concerns about Fr. Cowden that we believe were based on information provided to him by a pastor who served with Fr. Cowden many years before. Although Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. did not provide the basis for his concerns in 2002, later documents from 2006 reflect that one of the Archdiocese’s pastors had, many years before, shared concerns about Fr. Cowden with Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. and neither the pastor nor Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. reported these concerns to the Archdiocese at the time.

As noted earlier, Weisenburger asked Archbishop Beltran to “dispose after reading” an April 7, 2002 memo concerning Cowden and the possibility of pedophilia.  Weisenburger’s first response, then, to the disclosure of sexual abuse in this case was to request the Archbishop destroy documentation of the allegation.

Not until four years later, when an allegation surfaced, did Weisenburger record details of the abuse in diocesan files. Even then, nothing was reported to civil authorities, despite the fact that the Archdiocese deemed it necessary to send the priest away from ministry for treatment, suspended his faculties, ultimately requiring an early retirement.

Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. detailed in several memoranda dated in 2006 in Fr. Cowden’s file that as an associate pastor at a parish within the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, then-Fr. Weisenburger had been told by the pastor that Fr. Cowden had been involved in two seemingly troubling relationships with minor males when Fr. Cowden had previously been the associate pastor at the same parish. Both involved minor boys staying overnight at the rectory in the same room with Fr. Cowden when the pastor was out of town. The pastor knew the names of both potential victims, and in light of the October 11, 2006 allegation, Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. interviewed the pastor and documented details of the potential abuse.

One of the boys was 14 at the time and the other was the same person that had been reported to the Archdiocese on October 11, 2006. Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. confirmed with the pastor that the 14 year old boy, who had flown in to visit Fr. Cowden, had been taken to the country club by Fr. Cowden and the boy had become sick because he had been served too much wine.

The file does not, however, reflect that any further investigation was done by the Archdiocese into the allegations that Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. detailed from interviewing the pastor.

In response to the October 11, 2006 allegation, Fr. Cowden was sent for a 10-day evaluation to St. Luke Institute in Maryland, and following that, spent over six months at St. Luke’s in its residential treatment program. Fr. Cowden returned to Oklahoma City in May of 2007.

Prior to his arrival, the Archdiocese considered whether to allow Fr. Cowden to return to ministry, and if he returned, whether he could return in a “restricted ministry,” i.e., an assignment that would keep Fr. Cowden away from minors. Notably, there is documentation both from a member of the Review Board and from Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. strongly condemning any attempt by the Archdiocese to reinstate Fr. Cowden to ministry, even if it was a so-called “restricted ministry.” When questioned about the feasibility of “restricted ministries,” Bishop Weisenburger and Archbishop Beltran both told us that by 2007, it was obvious that such an arrangement was infeasible.

On June 8, 2007, shortly after Fr. Cowden’s return to Oklahoma from St. Luke’s, Archbishop Beltran met with Fr. Cowden and documented the meeting in a letter dated the same day to Fr. Cowden. At that meeting, Fr. Cowden was advised that he would be offered a medical retirement, his faculties would remain suspended, and he could not function publicly in a priestly ministry. Fr. Cowden was also advised that he was never to be alone with a minor child. There was no public announcement by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City as to the reasons for Fr. Cowden’s retirement.

Clearly, the Archdiocese, including Weisenburger, deemed the allegations of sexual abuse of a minor by Cowden to be serious and substantial enough to wholly remove him from priestly ministry, suspending his faculties and prohibiting contact with minors. However, it would take four years before any action was taken, and the apparently substantiated crime was never reported to law enforcement.

The Imming Case: Gaps in the File

In the case of Fr. David Imming, McAfee investigators stated that they found “many key records relating to allegations of child sexual abuse” that were missing from the priest’s diocesan file, suggesting either improper record keeping, or intentional exclusion or deletion. If the latter, it would not be the first instance during Weisenburger’s tenure that potentially incriminating evidence were scoured from the diocesan record.

Investigators state of the Imming case,

As a preliminary matter, it is important to note that there were many key records relating to allegations of child sexual abuse that were not found in Father David Imming’s priest file provided to us by the Archdiocese. It is unusual that there were records relating to allegations of child sexual abuse that were missing from the priest files kept by the Archdiocese. The priest files are consistently kept in chronological order and we identified noticeable “gaps” in time periods in Fr. Imming’s file where there were no records. Additionally, we observed that there were references to documents, allegations, and alleged victims for which there were no materials in Fr. Imming’s file. We attempted to identify records from Fr. Imming’s file by reviewing electronic records and certain litigation files that were in the Archdiocese’s possession. We found relevant records and materials relating to allegations of child sexual abuse in the litigation and electronic files that were not included in Fr. Imming’s priest file.

Just prior to an allegation of sexual abuse surfacing in April 2002, Weisenburger documented testimony from another priest accusing Imming of having abused him while the former was a seminarian under Imming’s charge.

On March 18, 2002, Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. conveyed concerns about Fr. Imming in a telephone call to Archbishop Beltran… Archbishop Beltran’s secretary typed a message to the Archbishop about Fr. Imming stating that Father Weisenburger “is more than ever disturbed because of a conversation with Father [last name omitted].… about a very serious incident when he was a seminarian.” Although Bishop Weisenburger could not recall the events when asked about them in 2019, we interviewed Father [last name omitted] and learned that the “very serious incident” involved allegations of sexual misconduct committed by Father Imming against that priest when he was a seminary student. Although not a minor at the time, he was a young adult over whom Father Imming held a position of authority. While this allegation is outside the scope of this Report because it does not involve a minor child, if true, it is our view that this misconduct by Fr. Imming would have constituted an abuse of his authority over the seminarian.

Rather than address the allegation directly, Weisenburger suggested Imming be given a six-month sabbatical and then sent somewhere for an assessment regarding suitability for ministry. Whether the assessment was to be medical or psychological was unclear to McAfee investigators, and Weisenburger alleged when interviewed by the law firm that his memory of the case was “far from clear.”

Several allegations of sexual abuse of a minor by Imming surfaced beginning in April 2002, resulting in a lawsuit in one of the cases. The Archdiocese suspended the priest on May 13, 2002, but failed to document in his file all such allegations.

Another allegation of sexual abuse of a minor against Fr. Imming was received on or about May 30, 2003, though this allegation was not documented in Fr. Imming’s priest file. We were able to locate materials related to this allegation in Archdiocese litigation files relating to the Schovanec lawsuit. According to these files, a priest received a complaint against Fr. Imming and shared it with Fr. Weisenburger, V.G., who then shared it with Archdiocese outside counsel Doug Eason. Mr. Eason notified the Oklahoma Department of Human Services of the allegation, which referred the matter to the Woods County District Attorney’s Office.

Eventually, Imming agreed to be laicized, which Rome imposed on June 20, 2011.

The Zoeller Case: Self-admission, Repeated Offense, No Public Disclosure

In the case of Fr. Benjamin Zoeller, Weisenburger documented multiple times allegations of sexual abuse of minors, including the provision of alcohol to the point of intoxication. Yet no disclosure to law enforcement ever took place, and, due to the failure to communicate anything of the matter to diocesan or parish personnel, Zoeller continued to work within a parish even after being laicized.

Below are the instances documented by Weisenburger concerning Zoeller:

• 1998: sexual behavior with a 16-year-old, including alcohol. Zoeller acknowledged the abuse and yet remained in active ministry after undergoing an “evaluation.”  From the McAfee report:

On September 24, 1998, Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. sent a memo to Archbishop Beltran stating an adult male had reported that Fr. Zoeller had engaged in sexual behavior with him on one occasion when he was a 16-year-old boy. According to subsequent memos by Fr. Weisenburger, V.G., the alleged victim reported that, at the time of the abuse, he was living in the rectory with Fr. Zoeller and that Fr. Zoeller was helping him stop using drugs. The alleged victim reported that Fr. Zoeller had provided him with alcohol when the incident occurred. According to an October 19, 1998 memo, Archbishop Beltran confronted Fr. Zoeller with the allegation, and Fr. Zoeller admitted it.

The memo further reflects that Archbishop Beltran told Fr. Zoeller he was sending him to St. Vincent’s Hospital for an evaluation, and if Fr. Zoeller received a “good evaluation,” Archbishop Beltran “would consider this a closed matter.” Fr. Zoeller went to St. Vincent’s later that month. Other documents in Fr. Zoeller’s priest file indicate that Fr. Zoeller acknowledged sexual contact with the alleged victim referenced above, but he denied any other sexual contact with minors. After returning from St. Vincent’s, Fr. Zoeller remained in active ministry.

• 2001: inappropriate touching of an 18-year-old. Zoeller was made to retire in July 2001, but retained priestly faculties, until he was finally suspended in March 2003 due to ongoing issues.  From the report:

In a July 2, 2001 memo in Fr. Zoeller’s priest file, Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. stated that parents at Fr. Zoeller’s parish had reported that Fr. Zoeller inappropriately touched their 18-year old son at a public event held at the parish. The inappropriate touching consisted of affectionately touching the young man’s face and caressing his leg and no sexual contact or abuse was reported, the memo stated.

The memo stated that the young man told his family later that evening that the touching made him feel uncomfortable, which was one reason the parents reported the incident to Church personnel. The parents also reported that Fr. Zoeller had meetings in the rectory with young men who were considering the seminary. We later confirmed these details during an interview with a witness who reported this matter to the Archdiocese.

According to a July 16, 2001 memo to Fr. Zoeller’s priest file written by Archbishop Beltran, Archbishop Beltran and Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. met with Fr. Zoeller to discuss the alleged touching incident. Fr. Zoeller denied engaging in any of the alleged conduct, the memo said. Archbishop Beltran instructed Fr. Zoeller not to have any contact with the family who reported the incident and that no young men would be allowed to enter the rectory again under any circumstances.

On July 18, 2001, Fr. Zoeller sent a letter to Archbishop Beltran requesting permission to retire from active duty as a priest in the Archdiocese. Archbishop Beltran wrote back on August 13, 2001 granting Fr. Zoeller’s request. Documents indicate that Fr. Zoeller formally retired in November 2001 but still retained his priestly faculties.

In a December 8, 2001 memo to Archbishop Beltran, Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. wrote that a staff member had told the pastor at Fr. Zoeller’s former parish that Fr. Zoeller had invited him/her to practice the faith at Fr. Zoeller’s home. The staff member had also asked the pastor if s/he was obligated to tell the pastor if he s/he was aware that Fr. Zoeller was “counseling young men,” the memo said. Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. wrote that Archbishop Beltran had the right to issue a “personnel precept forbidding [Fr. Zoeller] from counseling or having contact with adolescents.” “I regret that this matter continues to spiral out of control but I think we need to address it before any damage is done,” Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. wrote.

Documents in Fr. Zoeller’s priest file show that Archbishop Beltran promptly took action to forbid Fr. Zoeller from conducting religious services out of his home and that Fr. Zoeller was not to have unsupervised contact with young men. On May 4, 2002, Fr. Zoeller wrote to Archbishop Beltran requesting that his faculties be revoked. Archbishop Beltran wrote back on May 8, 2002 and accepted Fr. Zoeller’s request, suspending his faculties.

• 2006: Zoeller admitted to another instance of sexual abuse—though claimed the victim was now an adult.  The McAfee Report:

On February 13, 2006, Fr. Weisenburger, V.G. wrote a memo for Fr. Zoeller’s priest file documenting that a person reported that his brother was sexually abused by Fr. Zoeller when he was a minor. The alleged abuse occurred on two separate occasions. According to a February 20, 2006 memo from Fr. Weisenburger, V.G., when Fr. Zoeller was confronted with this new allegation, Fr. Zoeller admitted to the second alleged incident of sexual contact but maintained it occurred after the individual had turned 18-years-old. Ben Zoeller was laicized in 2011.

The Archdiocese did not disclose to the public or even internally to parishes or diocesan staff that the reason for his laicization was his admitted counts of sexual abuse of minors. As a result, Zoeller was allowed to volunteer at a South Oklahoma City parish.  Again, from the report:

In August 2018, the Archdiocese issued a statement announcing that Zoeller had been volunteering at a South Oklahoma City parish. According to the statement, the Archdiocese was previously unaware that Zoeller had been volunteering and that he was banned from doing so in the future. According to multiple interviews with current and former Archdiocese personnel, parish staff did not run Zoeller through a background check, as required under the Archdiocese’s policies and procedures. However, multiple Archdiocese officials told us that even if a background check had been run, short of Zoeller self-disclosing the prior accusations against him, he likely would have passed the background check. This is because the Archdiocese had not publicized his history of misconduct or the circumstances for his laicization in 2011.

Despite multiple instances of sexual abuse, one of which included the giving of alcohol to a minor—documented by Weisenburger and admitted by Zoeller, beginning in 1998—it took 13 years for Zoeller to be laicized. With no report either to law enforcement or the diocese’s own parishes of Zoeller’s history of abuse, it took another 7 years to finally ban him from volunteering at a parish within Oklahoma City.

External Critiques, Calls for Further Investigation

At the time the McAfee and Taft investigation was released, it sent shockwaves through the local press. The Oklahoman drew attention to the Archdiocese’s shameful conduct when it “paid the legal fees for a priest to file a defamation lawsuit against a man who had accused him of sexual abuse — even though the priest had admitted his actions to former Archbishop Eusebius Beltran and former Vicar General Edward Weisenburger.”

The news outlet also highlighted the fact that the Archbishop, with no apparent objection from his Vicar General (Weisenburger), “reinstated the priest in 2003 and in doing so, lied in a news release about the thoroughness of the investigation and the priest’s suitability.”

Reporting by the Oklahoma Legal Group flagged the dramatic delay in release of critical records: 37 boxes of documents held by former counsel were only turned over the day before release of the report—obstructing the investigation.

SNAP raised serious concerns about Weisenburger’s episcopal assignments, calling for a full investigation into how he has handled abuse allegations elsewhere.

SNAP believes that it is reasonable to assume that Bishop Weisenburger may have employed the same deplorable tactics in Kansas and Arizona. The group wants “prompt but thorough investigations” by Church officials and law enforcement into how the bishop has dealt with reports of child sexual abuse in the Diocese of Tucson and in his other assignments.

Archbishop Coakley, who commissioned the investigation, lamented the failure of his predecessors and the devastating effects of the abuse and cover-ups revealed by the McAfee report. In a letter published at the time of the report’s publication, he stated,

We are challenged to face again the crisis of sexual abuse of minors and vulnerable adults at the hands of clergy, and examine how we have dealt or failed to deal with this societal scourge within our Church. The long and the short of it is you trusted us, and we failed… The effects of such abuse have had devastating consequences far beyond individual victims and survivors.

Egregious Failures in Leadership and Duty

Weisenburger, as Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, bears considerable responsibility for the systemic failures documented in the McAfee report:

• Directing destruction of documents, precluding future examination;
• Email deletions post-departure, suggesting intentional avoidance of transparency;
• Financing defamation lawsuits on behalf of abuser priests, thereby targeting victims and discouraging cooperation with diocesan investigators, resulting in the concealment of facts from the review board;
• Legal machinations placing ecclesiastical reputation above the truth;
• Ignoring the sufferings of victims and the good of the lay faithful;
• Failure to report to civil authorities and the review board, betraying the trust of the lay faithful and abusing authority to protect those in power.

The recurrence of such failures across multiple cases over many years—before, during, and after allegations—reveals a disturbing pattern of concealment on the part of Weisenburger.

Canon Law Requirements on Document Preservation

The Church’s canon law imposes clear obligations regarding the preservation and/or destruction of ecclesiastical records.

Under Canon 486–488, all documents concerning the diocese or parishes must be carefully filed, secured in locked diocesan archives, and logged with inventories; removal of documents is only permitted briefly and with explicit permission from the bishop or the moderator of the curia and the chancellor.

Canon 489 mandates that secret archives—where records of canonical investigations and penal cases are held—be housed in a locked, immovable cabinet accessible only to the bishop.

Importantly, these canons require annual destruction of documents relating to criminal morality cases when either the accused has died or at least ten years have passed since a condemnatory sentence, with only a brief summary and the final judgment retained.

These provisions underscore that routine destruction of records outside such regulated contexts—especially before formal canonical processes have concluded—would violate the Church’s own legal norms.

If internal memos were destroyed at will or instructions to “destroy after reading” were issued indiscriminately—as documented in the Mcafee investigation—such actions:

• Contravene archdiocesan archival protocols mandated in Canons 486–488, which require proper safeguarding, cataloging, and controlled access to records.
• Violate the secure handling of sensitive materials as stipulated under Canon 489, where destruction is prescribed only under specific canonical circumstances—not discretionary internal practice.

Likewise, the deletion of nearly all of Weisenburger’s emails would not only breach civil norms for records retention—especially amid investigations—but also canon law concerning proper archival practices.

Though Canon 489 permits destruction under defined conditions, the context here implies wrongdoing. Canon law permits bishops to dispense from certain norms—including Canon 489’s destruction rule—since it’s not reserved to the Holy See, but such dispensations must be purposeful and lawful. However, destroying records to obstruct investigation or conceal clerical sexual abuse—especially prior to canonical sentencing or outside regulated norms—could itself constitute a canonical crime.

Some argue that the improper destruction of records of abuse or negligence is itself a canonical crime, notwithstanding the destruction rules. Thus, the orchestrated “destroy after reading” memos and sweeping email deletions may constitute not only administrative failures but potential canonically illicit acts.

Beyond recordkeeping, canon law and ethical norms require the proper handling of allegations. Canon 1717 obliges a bishop or ordinary to conduct a preliminary investigation upon receiving allegations of canonical offenses; Canon 1719 requires that records of such investigations be kept in the secret archives.

Destroying or preventing preservation of such records thus runs directly contrary to canonical justice and violates ecclesiastical norms intended to ensure the rights of victims and due process.

Civil Law and Broader Implications

The intentional destruction or concealment of records can also have civil legal ramifications. Ecclesiastical archives destroyed to impede civil or criminal investigation—particularly in abuse cases against minors—can be interpreted as criminal obstruction of justice. Further, even in cases in which canon law permits the eventual destruction of files, doing so with the intent to avoid scrutiny or shield wrongdoing would contravene the very purpose of such norms.

In what may amount to plausible canonical and legal misconduct, Weisenburger’s actions appear to disregard explicit ecclesiastical archival prescriptions as well as the Church’s legal and moral responsibilities. Weisenburger’s pattern of record destruction and suppression thus runs contrary to both canonical transparency and civil justice.

A Wolf in Shepherd’s Clothing?

According to the McAfee and Taft investigation, Weisenburger, over the course of his 16-year tenure as Vicar General for the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, was responsible for:

• “Dispose after reading” memos, raising questions of criminal intent to destroy damning evidence in abuse cases;
• Wholesale deletion of emails, erasing digital traces of official communications;
• Financing of a lawsuit on behalf of a self-confessed sexual abuser, against the victim;
• Strategic legal intimidation of abuse victims during investigations;
• And suppression of review board deliberation by withholding critical information from examination.

The cases documented by the investigation reveal a longstanding pattern of concealment and cover-up, in which Weisenburger played a central role. Abuse victims were targeted, evidence withheld from scrutiny or outright destroyed, sexual abusers protected from accountability and legal justice, and the Church’s integrity undermined.

Such actions do not constitute administrative oversights but are profound and disturbing moral failures in a now prominent shepherd of the Church. A full investigation into Weisenburger’s handling of clerical sexual abuse cases elsewhere is now long overdue.

The full McAfee and Taft report can read here.

Be sure to email this page to all your friends.

"Many now rebel against their leader, their God-given leader, your Vicar. In matters of faith and morals, man must not change the God-given laws, coming from the seat of Peter, and established through tradition upon earth through My Son's Church." - Our Lady of the Roses, October 6, 1979

The Virgin Mary's Bayside Prophecy Books are Now Available in E-book Version. Click Here Now!

When you pray the Holy Rosary, you have Our Lady's hand in yours. When you pray the Holy Rosary, you have the power of God in your hands. Start now!  Click here...

Our Lady of the Roses Awesome Bayside Prophecies... https://www.tldm.org/Bayside/ These prophecies came from Jesus, Mary, and the saints to Veronica Lueken at Bayside, NY, from 1968 to 1995.

Directives from Heaven... https://www.tldm.org/directives/directives.htm

D36 - Bishops (Part 1) PDF
D37 - Bishops (Part 2) PDF
D38 - Priests (Part 1) PDF
D39 - Priests (Part 2) PDF
D40 - Infiltrators PDF

The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
Quotations are permissible as long as this web site is acknowledged with a hyperlink to: http://www.tldm.org
Copyright © These Last Days Ministries, Inc. 1996 - 2025   All rights reserved.
P.O. Box 40                   616-698-6448
Lowell, MI 49331-0040
Revised: September 11, 2025