MK forum

This is only part of the new's story but YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME


St. Louis Archbishop Didn't Know Sex With Children Was a Crime



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

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 — including priests — 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.”

It's the classic example of men of the cloth saying any old preposterous rubbish to save their own skin. Of course they think that because they are men of the cloth that what they say will be believed. What they don't seem to realise is that the people who are asking them the hard questions are not gullible and stupid. And so this sort of nonsense incriminates them, but it also ruins the reputations of those good people who are their colleagues.

This clown is dreaming if he thinks anyone will buy into his explanation that he didn't know having sex with a child is wrong. But he won't be the last or first person to try this excuse.

Same lawsuit referenced by dbarney above, in this story highlighting a different abuser. does this sound familiar?

Former Rochester priest admits to abusing multiple children decades ago
Kay Fate, kfate@postbulletin.com | Updated 18 hours ago

Thomas Adamson, a former Rochester priest at the heart of a lawsuit against officials of the Catholic church, told attorneys that he sexually abused at least 10 boys but said he "looked at it more as a sin than — a crime."

Adamson has never spent a day in jail, nor faced criminal abuse charges — the statute of limitations has expired — but is the defendant in multiple civil suits.

Despite acknowledging that he had a 10-year relationship with one victim, had sexually abused several boys and had been caught at least once by law enforcement at a rendezvous with one victim, Adamson said he "reacted negatively" to his removal from the priesthood in 2010. He had voluntarily retired from active priesthood in 1984.

"Had anything happened that you believe precipitated (removal) after all these years?" Anderson asked.

"No. I would say no to that," Adamson said. "I didn't have any legal stuff going on or problems, and I had worked satisfactorily supporting myself for years. I made mistakes, but I liked priesthood."

He testified he last engaged in sexual contact with a minor in "1981 or 1982, maybe."

He testified that he believes "the definitions of abuse are different. I don't know what ... is inappropriate (conduct) in contrast to overt sex."

He apologized to Winona Bishop Bernard Harrington and others after his removal from the priesthood: "I just said I'm sorry for — generically, for whatever harm I've done."

Anderson asked what harm he was apologizing for.

"Well, I was involved in lawsuits and hurt some people in some parishes and the whole gamut," Adamson said.

Throughout his time in the priesthood, "not one (church official) ever asked him how many kids he abused," Anderson said Tuesday. "Nobody ever asked him, until I asked it."

He cited Winona diocese bishops Loras Watters and Edward Fitzgerald, now both dead, as the most negligent in their duties. Both received several reports of Adamson's abuse of minors.

"To them, they see themselves as caring for these kids," Anderson said of officials who did nothing. "They really don't understand how damaging it is because if they did, they couldn't live with themselves. Denial is a very powerful dimension."

Adamson, he added, "has no realization of the pain and the hurt that he's caused to these people. There's a narcissism about offenders that's pathological. I think he's a classic glimpse into the mind of a molester.

Whole story here. Actually, I think I copied most of it. The parallels are striking.

http://www.postbulletin.com/news/crime/ ... l?mode=jqm

Yes, this all sounds very familiar.

Disgustingly so.

[/quote]"I just said I'm sorry for — generically, for whatever harm I've done."

Anderson asked what harm he was apologizing for.

"Well, I was involved in lawsuits and hurt some people in some parishes and the whole gamut," Adamson said.[/quote]

Does this 'apology' do it for anyone?? I'm appalled! Basically saying, "I don't know that I've really done anything to hurt anyone, but on the off chance that I did ..." In other words, I'm not really guilty, but I'll play your little game if I have to. Disgusting.


[/quote] He cited Winona diocese bishops Loras Watters and Edward Fitzgerald, now both dead, as the most negligent in their duties.[/quote]

And then he has the gall to blame others! "Sure I did some 'stuff' but you should have stopped me..."

What he is trying to do is only admit to what has become known, the trouble is he isn't sure what is known, hence the vague apology. Paedophiles will usually confess to what they are confronted with (when the evidence is overwhelming and they reach the point of knowing the game is up), but they are much less likely to voluntarily confess or apologise for offences they think are not known about.

Also blaming others is common. i.e. the victim tempted me by wearing a certain type of clothing, or the victim didn't say "no" so I assumed they were consenting . . .

Oops, I miss-read that one. Thanks for clarifying for me.