Archbishop Robert Carlson's deposition

[ewlabonte]

I hate to say this, but jail bait referred to underage girls. Most likely, sex between males was illegal, not because of the age, but because of the gender involved.

I’m not trying to justify anyone. I think that everyone except the kids were wrong. Even if it wasn’t illegal, it was a mortal sin.

I don’t think age of consent laws specify the sex of the underaged victim. If homosexual sex was also against the law at that time it would be a separate charge, I think. But you are right. Everyone except the kids were wrong.

But my point was to show how unlikely it was that then Chancellor Carlson was unaware of the criminality of an adult sexually abusing a child. If he was referring to the mandatory disclosure laws, then maybe. But from the questions as they are posed in the video, I don’t see how he could have made that error unless he was extremely confused.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

He puts his questions in such a way as to assume guilt and he only goes after Catholic priests and bishops, no one else, such as doctors, teachers, coaches, Boy Scout leaders, therapists, etc. who have as many if not more incidents of sexual abuse of minors… People didn’t talk about Uncle Joe who had a disordinate love for his nephews or the school teacher who loved to take the boys out camping with no other adult supervision, etc. Sexual abuse was swept under the rug if even acknowledged… it angers me that everyone else in any other field in society gets a free pass from their sins/crimes of the past but our priests/bishops are made the scapegoat for the whole of a society that couldn’t have cared less until the Church was accused.

I’m always amazed when I see reasoning like this. There is an obvious difference between coaches, Boy Scouts, therapists, doctors, teachers and “Uncle Joe” and a priest. The former don’t represent Christ to those they victimize.

 

[estesbob]

I’m always amazed when I see reasoning like this. There is an obvious difference between coaches, Boy Scouts, therapists, doctors, teachers and “Uncle Joe” and a priest. The former don’t represent Christ to those they victimize.

Agreed. The Church should need held to a much higher standard. There is no excuse for the cover-up either.

 

[CatholicSooner]

Pretty weird. I haven’t read the whole deposition but from the lines quoted here, I don’t think he was talking about the reporting part of the law. I think his lawyer simply instructed him not to incriminate himself. So if you always say you don’t recall, you can’t incriminate yourself. I really think it is as simple as that.

 

[Della]

That’s amazing. I knew it was a crime back then. I knew that having sex with someone under the age of consent was a crime. The term “jail bait” goes back long before the 1980s. I feel that people are twisting themselves into contortions to cover up for this guy because he’s an Archbishop.

I didn’t say that no one knew it was a crime, I said that it wasn’t prosecuted in the courts at that time because there was no law on the books to do so. If you want to have an intelligent conversation, as opposed to a merely emotional one, we must stick to the facts here.

The Archbishop merely responded, quite truthfully, that there was no law concerning this issue at that time, at least that’s the jist of it. The question was put to him poorly and his response seemed confused, but considering that he wasn’t really being questioned for a deposition, but rather being grilled like a criminal, that’s not surprising. The archbishop was there to give his testimony–that’s what he thought he was doing. The questioner was there to pin him to the wall. It’s no wonder the questions and answers are confusing. We must take all the facts into consideration not just those that only tell one side of the story.

I’m not happy with the archbishop’s responses, either, but I am not willing to call him a criminal for being confused by the questions which were intended to make him appear to be part of some imaginary conspiracy to cover up crimes. He wasn’t but the questioner was determined to make him appear so. As I wrote before this lawyer has made a career of dredging up old cases long settled just to attack the Church. I’d like to know why he isn’t going after school administrators and doctors organizations, and the Boy Scouts, etc. with as much intensity. Could it be he has an agenda? I think the answer is obvious–he does.

 

[Della]

I’m always amazed when I see reasoning like this. There is an obvious difference between coaches, Boy Scouts, therapists, doctors, teachers and “Uncle Joe” and a priest. The former don’t represent Christ to those they victimize.

And the idea that clergy of any part of Christianity are perfect people who can’t sin is unrealistic. It isn’t that they ought to have known better, but that the Church alone is bearing the brunt as if no other institution didn’t have this problem too. Let’s get real here. Bishops and priests and deacons aren’t angels on earth. They are fallible men who the higher they are the more Satan drags them down when they fall in to grave sin. Doctors and lawyers and Boy Scout leaders aren’t subject to the same kinds of temptations. And when Church leaders–anyone’s religious leaderrs, Orthodox, as well, makes mistakes, it damages more than minds, it damages souls more because of the spiritual trust that was broken.

So no, bishops and other clergy who sinned or committed crimes don’t get a free pass in my book. But, they need our prayers more than any other type of leader/person in authority because their high office makes them more open to the wiles of the devil. All persons of faith should realize this and be earnest in their prayers for clergy and for all whom they serve.

Also, these cases are old ones, most 30 years old. Not that that makes it better, but it does have a bearing on culpability in the present. As I have stated before the lawyer who is dredging up these old cases has seen an opportunity to make money and attack the Church he hates so bitterly. If he were coming after your clergy people I don’t think you’d be so ready to throw them under the bus so this man could destroy people’s lives to promote a long dead issue. The Church has put safeguards into place and is being very diligent about this issue. Other institutions stand back and tut-tut at the Church while sexual abuse runs rampant through their organizations. But they don’t get the same kind of publicity and no one is demonizing their leadership the way the press has demonized the Church. And that’s the truth.

 

[J_Peterson]

My complaint about the lawyer who is donig the questioning is that he should have been more honest about what they are talking about. He should have asked if the Archbishop knew that rape was illegal.

 

[Della]

My complaint about the lawyer who is donig the questioning is that he should have been more honest about what they are talking about. He should have asked if the Archbishop knew that rape was illegal.

Sexual abuse was not considered rape at one time, sad to say. We know better now hence laws have been enacted to bring perpetrators to justice, as they should have been long ago.

 

[losh14]

I’ve been following this story since it broke. There’s a lot that did NOT get mentioned in the media, and really should have been.

The trial is about events that happened in the early 1980s, 30 years ago.
This is the FIFTH deposition being taken of Archbishop Carlson, with the previous four having been between 1958 and 1987.
This particular deposition lasted FIVE HOURS. Carlson turns 70 at the end of this month - if you grill a 70-year-old man for five hours about events when he was 40 years old, he’s going to say he doesn’t know or doesn’t remember quite often.
This deposition is marked, on every page top and bottom, CONFIDENTIAL.

Despite that, the attorney who is suing the Archdiocese released this CONFIDENTIAL deposition to the media ahead of the trial. Why? To skew opinion. To elicit a response from SNAP (who obliged by staging a protest in front of the Cathedral Basilica yesterday). To pressure the Archdiocese into settling.

I’m a Catholic convert and my confidence in the Catholic hierarchy has been severely shaken by Archbishop Robert Carlson’s claim in a deposition that he wasn’t sure that he was aware that sex with children was against the law,

Carlson never said he didn’t know that sex with children was against the law. The deposition itself (all 181 pages) is here:
stltoday.com/archbishop-robert-j-carlson-deposition/pdf_8545e986-5a00-5e7b-81a9-a6eb04604585.html

Today’s story cites another portion of the deposition:
<<<<<
“But you knew a priest touching the genitals of a kid to be a crime, did you not?” referring to what a 1987 church memo said about the alleged incident.

“Yes,” Carlson replied.
Don’t let the media shake you. The writer, Lilly Fowler, reported the attorney’s leaked memo and press release almost verbatim. I wrote her and chided her on having done so and asked her to question the reasons for the attorney to leak a confidential document like that. The attorneys have a vested interest in shaking down the Church. Sometimes I think the media doesn’t have an interest in portraying the Church fairly.

Seriously, give any other instance in which a 70-year-old man is grilled for 5 hours and people will cry fowl.

 

[Thorns]

And the idea that clergy of any part of Christianity are perfect people who can’t sin is unrealistic. It isn’t that they ought to have known better, but that the Church alone is bearing the brunt as if no other institution didn’t have this problem too. Let’s get real here. Bishops and priests and deacons aren’t angels on earth. They are fallible men who the higher they are the more Satan drags them down when they fall in to grave sin. Doctors and lawyers and Boy Scout leaders aren’t subject to the same kinds of temptations. And when Church leaders–anyone’s religious leaderrs, Orthodox, as well, makes mistakes, it damages more than minds, it damages souls more because of the spiritual trust that was broken.

So no, bishops and other clergy who sinned or committed crimes don’t get a free pass in my book. But, they need our prayers more than any other type of leader/person in authority because their high office makes them more open to the wiles of the devil. All persons of faith should realize this and be earnest in their prayers for clergy and for all whom they serve.

Also, these cases are old ones, most 30 years old. Not that that makes it better, but it does have a bearing on culpability in the present. As I have stated before the lawyer who is dredging up these old cases has seen an opportunity to make money and attack the Church he hates so bitterly. If he were coming after your clergy people I don’t think you’d be so ready to throw them under the bus so this man could destroy people’s lives to promote a long dead issue. The Church has put safeguards into place and is being very diligent about this issue. Other institutions stand back and tut-tut at the Church while sexual abuse runs rampant through their organizations. But they don’t get the same kind of publicity and no one is demonizing their leadership the way the press has demonized the Church. And that’s the truth.

Della, the media does cover other cases of abuse among police officers, teachers, and coaches. I see something in the news about that every week, so theyre really not singling out the Church.

Also, the cover ups are unfortunately not a conspiracy theory, but a worldwide reality. I think this is what angers people the most and what has shaken many peoples faith in the Church.

 

[exnihilo]

Question: “You knew it was a crime for an adult to engage in sex with a kid(?)”
Answer: “I’m not sure I knew it was a crime or not. I understand today it’s a crime.”

There was no reference to mandatory reporting in that question. Even if they had been talking about mandatory reporting, that question was obviously directly about the criminal nature of the act itself.

Assuming this is what transpired, the question was unclear and the Archbishop should have asked for clarification. What is a kid? What ages does that cover? In the US today many states have an age of consent of 16. Many people would call a 16 year old a kid. In the past 10 was not uncommon as an age of consent.

The question is actually vague and the Archbishop’s answer, while very poor, is not surprising given the terrible question. What the Archbishop really needs is a better attorney.

 

[J_Peterson]

Assuming this is what transpired, the question was unclear and the Archbishop should have asked for clarification. What is a kid? What ages does that cover? In the US today many states have an age of consent of 16. Many people would call a 16 year old a kid. In the past 10 was not uncommon as an age of consent.

The question is actually vague and the Archbishop’s answer, while very poor, is not surprising given the terrible question. What the Archbishop really needs is a better attorney.

The memo in the original article states that the abuse took place when he was between 14-16. It also states that the statute of limitations will expire in 2.5 years (from the date of the letter) and that the parents were thinking of going to the police. Why would he be concerned with them going to the police if there were questions about consent or the legality of what went on? Why did he not recommend that the parents go to the police? Why did he specifically point out the statue of limitations unless he was hoping to put them off until it expires (then I assume he is okay with letting them rot, as long as he gets to keep his position and reputation).

These are the actions of prideful men that are more afraid of looking bad than they are about a kid being raped by someone.

Why is there this need for Catholics to appologize for these men? I have absolutely no desire to stick up for them. They don’t affect my faith at all though. I wouldn’t give them that much credit, they are just men like any other.

 

[losh14]

That children have been molested by priests is terrible. Period.
That officials - bishops or otherwise - have attempted to cover up or hide the molestation is terrible. Period.
That Carlson doesn’t remember all details - I’ll forgive. I wouldn’t expect him to. That’s why we have documents.
That Carlson said “I don’t remember” multiple times - I understand. The questions in the deposition are very repetitive - something attorneys are fond of doing. To his credit, Carlson repeatedly asks for documents to refresh his memory.
That Carlson tripped up in his words about what was a crime and what wasn’t, I’m willing to overlook. I think the line of questioning was confounding - the deposition itself seems very chaotic a many points, with objections and arguments between the attorneys breaking out in addition to a repetitive line of questioning.

But Carlson never reported Adamson to the police. That’s where I struggle with passing judgement.
On the one hand, the alleged abuse occurred prior to Carlson’s appointment to a supervisory position over Adamson. If I were in Carlson’s (uncomfortable) position, i’d hope to get Adamson to turn himself in, at least then we’d have a confession. Failing that, I’d encourage the family to report it to the police - if I reported and the family didn’t, I’d be reporting hearsay and the police would go to the family. If the family didn’t want to report it, I’d be putting them in a position they may not want to be in. Which means that I’d leave it to them whether to report or not.

On the other hand, I’d have to do something about this priest. That’s where I find fault with the Archbishop. His treatment of Fr. Adamson (pages 58 - 70 of the deposition, specifically) is inadequate and leaves other children at risk. Carlson wrote in 1980 that Adamson had a “pattern” that constituted a “gross case of misjudgement” and destroyed “his long-term effectiveness in the Archdiocese”, and called the behavior “intolerable”. Carlson was instructed to ask for Adamson’s resignation, and if he did not yield it, to suspend him from pastoral duties. Adamson asked for clemency. At a later meeting, he was assigned for evaluation and would only be ineligible for youth ministry, a drastic decrease in punishment.

However, the evaluation concluded that Adamson had abused multiple children and still he was assigned to yet another parish. At this point, Carlson notes (on page 72) that he was removed from the case because he opposed Adamson’s reassignment to another parish.

I think Carlson should have taken a harder line and suspended the priest, for the sake of protecting further children, and as a disciplinary measure. The parents apparently went to the police (because Carlson testified at trial a few years later).

All of the above does not abrogate that the attorney for the plaintiff released a confidential deposition ahead of trial. I think his purposes for doing so were to push the Church into a settlement through humiliation and inciting a reaction from SNAP and the media.

 

[Della]

Della, the media does cover other cases of abuse among police officers, teachers, and coaches. I see something in the news about that every week, so theyre really not singling out the Church.

Sure, a blurb here and there, a one sentence report and that’s about it for any other institution besides the Church. When it’s the Church, though they have 10 to 15 minutes segments with disgruntled people airing their angst and ire. There’s nothing like that for other offenders from other groups, not even other church groups. No, the Church is targeted deliberately. I’ve seen it again and again.

Also, the cover ups are unfortunately not a conspiracy theory, but a worldwide reality. I think this is what angers people the most and what has shaken many peoples faith in the Church.

Men were shifted around at the advice of psychological therapists, who are all getting a free pass, by the way, in this whole thing. The bishops were truly stumped as to how to deal with sexual abuse since it was not on the radar in the seminaries, parishes or even secular society. To target the Church like this when no one had any idea the extent of such abuse at large, not just in the Church, is unfair besides being misleading.

I’m not saying what was done was good or sensible or wise, but it wasn’t done to deliberately put anyone in danger. The idea that the bishops just didn’t care is not true. They believed the mental health professionals who told them how to handle the priests who were abusing. Sure some covered things up–like other institutions have done–and not been raked over the coals for it. It is a world wide problem but it isn’t reserved inside the Church. It’s a societal problem that we only began to address in the last decade or so.

 

[Seraphignatius]

St. Peter Damien, o’ holy doctor, pray for us.

I think he was just trying to dodge as many questions as possible by saying he didn’t remember, or was confused.

 

[Brendan]

Assuming this is what transpired, the question was unclear and the Archbishop should have asked for clarification. What is a kid? What ages does that cover? In the US today many states have an age of consent of 16. Many people would call a 16 year old a kid. In the past 10 was not uncommon as an age of consent.

The question is actually vague and the Archbishop’s answer, while very poor, is not surprising given the terrible question. What the Archbishop really needs is a better attorney.

According to this article - stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-louis-archbishop-carlson-implicated-in-child-sex-abuse-claim/article_6992bef7-9c5d-5d5b-a37f-ea58b881d0a6.html

The incident that +Carlson was informed of involved a 16 year old. The age of consent in MN is 16 years.

Father Thurner explained that he had had a brief sexual relationship with a 16 year old boy and had also purchased liquor for that boy

So assuming that the lawyer was referring to that incident, what happened then was not a crime under MN law, at least not the sex part. The offering of alcohol to a minor would have been.

 

[Thorns]

Sure, a blurb here and there, a one sentence report and that’s about it for any other institution besides the Church. When it’s the Church, though they have 10 to 15 minutes segments with disgruntled people airing their angst and ire. There’s nothing like that for other offenders from other groups, not even other church groups. No, the Church is targeted deliberately. I’ve seen it again and again.

Sandusky had fifteen minute segments and was thrown out there. Corrupt cops are talked about quite a bit. Pedophile teachers in my area had big segments. The only difference in these cases are, the organization they belonged to disassociated themselves from these individuals, and worked with investigators. Perhaps that is one reason people arent as outraged at those things because they were dealt with properly.

 

[losh14]

Sandusky had fifteen minute segments and was thrown out there. Corrupt cops are talked about quite a bit. Pedophile teachers in my area had big segments. The only difference in these cases are, the organization they belonged to disassociated themselves from these individuals, and worked with investigators. Perhaps that is one reason people arent as outraged at those things because they were dealt with properly.

I think there’s more effort to save these men, or at least there used to be. That said, a massive scandal in teh Los Angeles Unified Public School District is still barely-covered, ie rarely makes the national news, despite that administrators were accused of the same thing - covering up, moving teachers, allowing accused teachers to remain employed.

 

[Della]

Sandusky had fifteen minute segments and was thrown out there. Corrupt cops are talked about quite a bit. Pedophile teachers in my area had big segments. The only difference in these cases are, the organization they belonged to disassociated themselves from these individuals, and worked with investigators. Perhaps that is one reason people arent as outraged at those things because they were dealt with properly.

Sandusky was a one off case because it involved a noted university. Other similar cases have had far less attention. And Penn State only “disassociated” itself after years of covering up and ignoring allegations. Hardly much difference in how they handled their case. Our bishops have and are working with law enforcement. Archbishop Carlson has given FIVE depositions to the same lawyer, Anderson. How many more are required? As many as it will take for Anderson to pin something criminal on a man who has fought his whole ministry against sexual abuse, it seems. People are outraged because people like Anderson keep stirring the pot over decades old cases precisely in order to make the Church pay until she is bankrupt. That’s the least Anderson wants–all the while making good money doing it. This isn’t a case about a criminal finally being brought to justice, this is persecution of the most deliberate and nasty kind.

 

[pnewton]

Did you even bother reading the transcript or did you just take the (Catholic) media’s word on the matter?

Pages 108(14)-110(6) of the actual deposition show that the video was not doctored, and the Archbishop answered without certainty to the originally alleged question of whether he knew it was a crime for an adult to have sex with a child! Pay close attention to the parts I put in bold on page 109, and the Archbishop’s response in blue.

Did you read the first 100 pages? Yes the AB was being evasive, but he was asked to swear under oath from memory, with no paperwork to refresh the memory, events of thirty plus years ago. How many details can you give of whatever job you were on thirty years ago. He was pushed continually and had to keep responding that he did not remember.

So now, a hundred pages later, he is giving the same answers. Is he evasive? Yes. Why? I do not think it was for any evil motive. I cannot imagine being anymore forth coming being grilled like that with unanswerable questions. I submit that no one can know if they would do a better job of answering without being in such a situation. I would say it is better to just shut down and stop answering when one wearies over time.

It might have been better just to stop and take a long break though.