Archbishop Robert Carlson Says He Was Unsure If Priests Raping Children Was A Crime

Submitted by: daegog 1 week ago in News & Politics


Now you have officially heard it all.

An excerpt from Patheos: In an unbelievable display of moral cowardice and deceit, the head of the Archdiocese of St. Louis said under oath that he wasn’t sure whether he knew if it was illegal for priests to have sex with children.

After admitting to protecting pedophile priests from prosecution, St. Louis archbishop Robert Carlson (pictured above) testified that he wasn’t sure whether he knew if it was illegal for priests to have sex with children when he served as chancellor of the Twin Cities archdiocese in the 1980s, according to a court transcript.

Archbishop Carlson also said under oath he couldn’t recall how he handled allegations of abuse against a Minnesota priest years ago. But Carlson did admit he never went to authorities after finding out a priest engaged in criminal sexual conduct with a minor.

Carlson was deposed last month in a case against the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, where Carlson investigated allegations of abuse from 1979 to 1994.
There are 43 comments:
Male 213
This supports my belief that all involved should be charged under the rico statutes.   They've operated their church as a criminal enterprise charge them as such. 
1
Reply
Male 3,974
So, he's not the go-to guy for moral guidance I guess,
He's a liar, he may himself be a pedophile, certainly he has engaged in a conspiracy to cover up on going felonies.
Handling these people with respect and reverence has not impressed upon them the gravity of their crimes; The Church dips into limitless funds to pay off survivors and whatever fines imposed, a priest here and there does a little time - but asholes like this guy keep cropping up.
I betcha if the U.S. government seized all financial and real assets of the Catholic criminal empire, and started putting guilty priests away for life in maximum security facilities, it just might get the message across that raping children is unquestionably a crime.   
1
Reply
Female 159
captkangaroo 
seizing assets would go a long way in attempting to purge the national debt.
0
Reply
Male 3,974
chickenfarts 
Screw Afghanistan, let's invade Rome.
0
Reply
6,384
Yes, it is but meny think its it's ok if the child "wanted it". (Its not)
 But a bishop should know that it is a sin to have ANY sexual contact outside of  marriage.
-1
Reply
Male 12,681
dm2754 Didn't you once say it is ok to have sex with a donkey if they want it?
1
Reply
6,384
holygod ya if want to fuck an ass that's your business. Animals are not children. I would rather you hump your house pet than children. But if  you get your dick bitten off thats on you. So do what you wnat holygod just leve the kid alone. 
-1
Reply
Male 12,681
dm2754 Interesting stance to take. But hey, you do ewe.
2
Reply
6,384
holygod 
Who am I to judge what goes on in somebody's bedroom. I don't see why anybody would want to have sex with a horse but then again I don't see why somebody wants to have sex with a vibration motor.
-1
Reply
Female 6,147
dm2754 Because the "vibration motor" can make a woman jerk like a Toyota Corolla with bad gas going uphill. ;)
2
Reply
Male 9,342
0
Reply
Male 1,318
melcervini wow. Mental image, much?
Comment of the decade. Kudos.
1
Reply
Male 8,668
Been going on since the 4th century. why would they stop when they have been getting away with it for so long?
-1
Reply
Male 12,681
It wasn't in the 10 commandments so maybe he thought it wasn't that big of a deal. I'm sure he followed the important rules like not saying god's name in a mean way though.
1
Reply
6,384
holygod it kind of is
-1
Reply
Male 8,668
dm2754 Which one?
-1
Reply
6,384
LordJim 
You shall not commit adultery. ( ANY sexual contact outside of  marriage)
But the prvs if Yemen fond a loophole.  They set the age of constant to 9 if you are married.
Their was a protest about it in New York 
-1
Reply
Male 8,668
dm2754  You shall not commit adultery. ( ANY sexual contact outside of  marriage) 

I understand that words change meanings but I have always understood adultery to mean breaking the vows of marriage. If unmarried it was fornication.

I have never committed adultery, but back in the day...
-1
Reply
6,384
LordJim the interpretation also varies from religion to religion. But that's how it was preached to me in the Catholic Church.
-1
Reply
Male 8,668
dm2754 Aye, well. I was raised Methodist myself, and you know what they're like for the fornicating.

Not as much as the Wee Free's, obviously.
-1
Reply
Male 1,373
dm2754 "You shall not commit adultery."

There has never been any question about the meaning of this particular mitzvoh. It prohibits sexual relations with a married or betrothed woman.

Unless one of the abused children was female and married or betrothed, these priests did not violate that commandment. (Though I believe a case could be made that only Jews are bound by the old Mitzvohs.)

Any "prvs if Yemen" (if I understand what you meant to write) would most likely be Muslim and follow Sharia. Any kind of sexual activity, outside of marriage, is prohibited in Yemen. A girl can be married at any age, with or without her consent, but intercourse is prohibited until she reaches puberty. Under Islamic law, puberty requires distinct physical evidence, but can begin as early as nine years of age for girls. I have been told that it is not unheard of for men of every religion to violate the laws of their faith when their blood is up.

I am happy to hear of your assertion that New York is upholding their well-deserved reputation for a high moral standard.
1
Reply
60
dm2754 yea the jews suck baby dicks too for some reason.google it
0
Reply
Male 8,605
andy_bart I was on the verge of doing a delete here as this seemed to be nothing but an outlandish anti-Semitic smear. And indeed, it mostly is. But having done the Google search you suggested, I found there's a kernel of truth here in the practice of "oral suction circumcision," as reported in this article in The Guardian.

To be clear, I don't think anyone's performing a sexual act in this instance and I don't think the rabbis are getting off. So far as I understand it, it's a rather bizarre and uncommon ancient ritual associated with circumcision among Orthodox Jews.
0
Reply
Male 8,668
squrlz4ever Up to you, but I would have thought it delete-worthy, kernel of truth or not.

A truth that's told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent.

Blake.
0
Reply
Male 8,605
LordJim Yeah, I'm a bit torn on this one. It's a racist smear, for sure. I thought it might be better to keep it up for educational purposes as an example of how these kinds of smears work. In this instance, an ancient medical practice that goes back to Biblical times is being depicted as a sexual act and offered as an equivalence of Catholic priests raping boys.

I may still delete it. I'm still mulling this over. Thanks for the input.
0
Reply
6,384
andy_bart that's a new one by me. But more reason to abolish all religions
-1
Reply
Male 8,668
dm2754 We'll see the end of religion when people stop being afraid of death. Not before.
-1
Reply
Male 1,373
andy_bart That claim has been made about a great many cultures, for the purpose of dehumanizing them. It does not appear to be true about any of them.
0
Reply
Male 12,681
dm2754 Ehhhh. Depends how you define it. Any current definition says it is only adultery if you are MARRIED and if it is CONSENSUAL.
0
Reply
Male 8,668
dm2754 And the OT position on this? ( I already know, but go for it anyway. )
-1
Reply
6,384
LordJim are you referring to the bar mitzvah when your declared an adult?
-2
Reply
Male 8,668
dm2754 No. I was just thinking of the usual passages that we all know;  Numbers 31:15-18,  Deuteronomy 21:10-14. 
0
Reply
Male 1,373
LordJim The instructions in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 are a long step up from what was customary then.
0
Reply
Male 8,668
semichisam01 One might have hoped that an all powerful god declaring eternal laws might have taken that extra step?
-1
Reply
Male 1,373
LordJim We will never know who the 'deuteronomist' was, but he clearly felt that since there is no way to prevent armed and dangerous men from taking what they want, perhaps they can be persuaded to recognise that women deserve some human rights.
0
Reply
Male 8,668
semichisam01 That seems fair. The 'deuteronomist',  in that case seems to have been a pretty decent chap. All credit to him.

God doesn't need to persuade. Certainly not back in the day.
-1
Reply
Male 1,373
LordJim "God doesn't need to persuade. Certainly not back in the day."

God isn't what He used to be. Me too. (sigh)
0
Reply
Male 1,373
holygod He would certainly never covet his neighbors pink beanie.
0
Reply
Male 17,643
Maybe he didn't think he had a legal (secular) responsibility to report the crimes. In his world, guidelines of moral responsibility  flows from the Vatican. If church policy was morally bankrupt, that's another matter. The faithful will not demand the church repents and pays for its wrongs, sadly.
-1
Reply
Male 9,892
Draculya Maybe he didn't think he had a legal (secular) responsibility to report the crimes. 

Then it must be made very, very clear to them that in such matters the Vatican does not, and cannot, absolve him from such a responsibility.
0
Reply
Male 8,668
megrendel Unfortunately, it can. If he's in the Vatican, he's untouchable. Soveriegn state, on very shaky grounds, but most countries play along. 
-1
Reply
Male 9,892
LordJim The Pope may be in the Vatican, but this guy is in St. Louis.  Otherwise known as 'under the US's jurisdiction.'
0
Reply
Male 8,668
megrendel How long does it take to fly to Rome? Quite a few have taken that option. No extradition, comfortable quarters, light duties. I imagine that the catering is outstanding.
-1
Reply