Archbishop Said He Didn't Know It Was Criminal To Have Sex With Children

[stromboli]

http://occupythevatican.com/2016/01/29/archbishop-says-he-didnt-know-it-was-criminal-to-have-sex-with-children/

Archbishop Says He ‘Didn’t Know’ It Was Criminal To Have Sex With Children.

The St. Louis archbishop embroiled in a sexual abuse scandal testified that he didn’t know in the 1980s whether it was illegal for priests to have sex with children, according to a released court deposition.

Archbishop Robert Carlson, who was chancellor of the Archdiocese of Minneapolis and St. Paul at the time, was deposed as part of a lawsuit against the Twin Cities archdiocese and the Diocese of Winona, Minnesota.

In a video released by the St. Paul law firm Jeff Anderson & Associates, the Catholic archbishop is asked whether he had known it was a crime for an adult to engage in sex with a child.

“I’m not sure whether I knew it was a crime or not,” Carlson responded. “I understand today it’s a crime.”

When asked when he first realized it was a crime for an adult â€" including priests â€" to have sex with a child, Carlson, 69, shook his head.

“I don’t remember,” he testified.

Attorney Jeff Anderson, who is representing an alleged clergy abuse victim, also released documents Monday indicating Carlson was aware in 1984 of the seriousness of child abuse allegations. He wrote to then-Archbishop John Roach that parents of one of the alleged victims was planning to go to police.
Carlson’s role at the time was to investigate abuse claims. He admitted in his deposition that he never personally went to police, even when a a clergy member admitted to inappropriate behavior.

In last month’s testimony, Carlson responded 193 times that he did not recall abuse-related conversations from the 1980s to mid-1990s.

Anderson provided a report from a previous deposition in 1987 in which now-deceased Bishop Loras Watters said he advised Carlson to answer “I don’t remember” if questioned in court.

Carlson responded last month that he had “no knowledge of the discussion.”

Carlson left the Twin Cities in 1994, and eventually became St. Louis archbishop in 2009.
The Archdiocese of St. Louis said in a statement Monday that Carlson had given testimony “several times many years ago” about the same allegations, according to NBC affiliate KSDK.

“In this most recent deposition, while not being able to recall his knowledge of the law exactly as it was many decades ago, the Archbishop did make clear that he knows child sex abuse is a crime today,” the statement said. “The question does not address the Archbishop’s moral stance on the sin of pedophilia, which has been that it is a most egregious offense.”

How fucked up is this? A man in a position of authority, supposedly whose life calling is to be a leader and moral compass to millions, didn't know it was wrong to have sex with children?

Good thing I'm not running things. Right now I'd be stuffing high explosives into the basement of every Catholic cathedral on the planet.

[drunkenshoe]

Do you seriously believe this man didn't know that what he did was illegal, strom? Obviously, he is advised by his attorney to play the stupid with some dose of an alzheimers.

I think there is something people miss with these cases. These people see themselves entitled to do this if they want to; they see themselves above the others and they are utterly conivnced that it is something else when they do it. Same goes for other religious 'authority' figures.

It doesn't have to be some abhorrent crime like this one. They see themselves entitled to do many things when it calls for it. Ffs, they tell people whether they are going to burn in hell for eternity or not. In their minds they hold the ways to the ultimate end. Do you really think when the suitable tendency gets to that position, he will think 'oh that's terrible, I'd be judged' -by any means?

I wouldn't get surprised, if some of these priests even think that they are actually giving these children a chance to be accepted to heaven and that themselves are going to benefit from that considering their occupation.

[SGOS]

When asked when he first realized it was a crime for an adult â€" including priests â€" to have sex with a child, Carlson, 69, shook his head.

"I kind of knew it was wrong for adults, but I thought for priests it was one of the job perks.  Anyway, ignorance of the law works if your a priest, so we're good here, right?"

[stromboli]

Do you seriously believe this man didn't know that what he did was illegal, strom? Obviously, he is advised by his attorney to play the stupid with some dose of an alzheimers.

I think there is something people miss with these cases. These people see themselves entitled to do this if they want to; they see themselves above the others and they are utterly conivnced that it is something else when they do it. Same goes for other religious 'authority' figures.

It doesn't have to be some abhorrent crime like this one. They see themselves entitled to do many things when it calls for it. Ffs, they tell people whether they are going to burn in hell for eternity or not. In their minds they hold the ways to the ultimate end. Do you really think when the suitable tendency gets to that position, he will think 'oh that's terrible, I'd be judged' -by any means?

I wouldn't get surprised, if some of these priests even think that they are actually giving these children a chance to be accepted to heaven and that themselves are going to benefit from that considering their occupation.

Which tells you how above the law and entitled these people think they are, and how deeply ingrained their feeling of superiority is.

[PopeyesPappy]

Do you seriously believe this man didn't know that what he did was illegal, strom? Obviously, he is advised by his attorney to play the stupid with some dose of an alzheimers.

I'm not defending this guy in any shape form or fashion, but I don't have a problem believing someone can't remember details from an event or conversation that took place 20 plus years ago. Even important events and conversations. Not necessarily due to age or dementia either.

Case in point. Sometime in the early 80s I witnessed (was involved in) a fatal automobile accident. I was sitting at the stoplight on a major intersection waiting to make a right hand turn. Our light was red, and I was looking left waiting on an opening in the traffic. Somebody on the same street I was didn't stop at got T-boned by someone coming from my left. One of the cars hit mine and did some minor damage. Once the cops got there I filled out an accident report, and told them what I saw.

Almost two years later to the day (the time limit for civil suit) I got a call from the lawyer for the estate of someone that died in the accident. He wanted me to testify in court that a specific car was the one that ran the light. I told him I would testify that the car traveling on Weatherly Road ran the light, but wouldn't say which car it was because I didn't remember those details. Asshole was pissed because I wouldn't because I wouldn't say what he wanted me to say, but I basically told him that was too fucking bad. He should have got in touch before that penguin got pushed off the iceberg.

[stromboli]

Understand dementia, since I am in that age range. But to not know that having sex with children is wrong? You would have to be very far gone to not understand that basic morality.

[josephpalazzo]

http://occupythevatican.com/2016/01/29/archbishop-says-he-didnt-know-it-was-criminal-to-have-sex-with-children/


How fucked up is this? A man in a position of authority, supposedly whose life calling is to be a leader and moral compass to millions, didn't know it was wrong to have sex with children?

Good thing I'm not running things. Right now I'd be stuffing high explosives into the basement of every Catholic cathedral on the planet.

When you're used to lie so often as these religious people do, at one point you can't make the difference between telling a lie or the truth. This archbishop is a flagrant example of that.

[aitm]

He was merely filling them with the love of jebus.

[josephpalazzo]

He was merely filling them with the love of jebus.

He can have all the love of jebus... in prison.

[PopeyesPappy]

Understand dementia, since I am in that age range. But to not know that having sex with children is wrong? You would have to be very far gone to not understand that basic morality.

Wasn't commenting that he shouldn't know sex with children was wrong. Just that you don't have to have dementia to forget shit from a long time ago. In my case say about breakfast time...

[stromboli]

Wasn't commenting that he shouldn't know sex with children was wrong. Just that you don't have to have dementia to forget shit from a long time ago. In my case say about breakfast time...

Lol. I hear you.

[josephpalazzo]

Wasn't commenting that he shouldn't know sex with children was wrong. Just that you don't have to have dementia to forget shit from a long time ago. In my case say about breakfast time...

That's not relevant to this situation. This archbishop doesn't know having sex with children is wrong??? According to the church, even consenting sex between adults out of wedlock is wrong. Come on, this is pure lying.

[SoldierofFortune]

why exactly at the age of 18 a child is accepted as mature enough to be held responsible in front of the law, and having sex with them is okey?

[PopeyesPappy]

That's not relevant to this situation. This archbishop doesn't know having sex with children is wrong??? According to the church, even consenting sex between adults out of wedlock is wrong. Come on, this is pure lying.

I believe it is relevant because Shoe made it a point to say the guy was claiming an Alzheimer's (like) defense because he said he couldn't remember shit that happened 30 years ago. I say most people remember very few details for events that far back. Even important events.

[drunkenshoe]

PopeyesPappy and stromboli,

There is a big difference in not remembering a detail in a minor car accident or something you said-saw about something that is common in daily life; something that wouldn't not threaten your life as a possible consequence AND a discussion about a serious crime that would ruin a person's life; result in incarceration for a long time.

This is not an accident, nor some detail of another illegal event. This has been a taboo for a very long time and a very serioues crime. Probably the most important one regarding sex offences, a type of crime every society/culture is very sensitive and attuned to because it concerns children. It was the same 20 years ago in 1996 or 30 years ago in 1986 or 40 years ago in 1976. The fact that they are much better handled and reported today doesn't change the nature of the crime or how it is regarded and known in the society.

This is not something to forget. However, it could be something he never considered 'illegal' for himself, because of his position or never imagined that he would be prosecuted for this crime as he is a 'man of cloth'.

So it is pretty obvious to me -unless it is officially proved that he is senile- that he is trained by an attorney for his testimony.