Archbishop Carlson – “I’m not sure whether I knew it [CSA] was a crime or not,”

“And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” – Matthew 18:6


It is extraordinary that anyone might not be aware of secular law but is implausible that a Christian Archbishop might not be aware of the teachings of Jesus.

“On May 23, 2014 the current Archbishop of St. Louis Robert Carlson gave sworn testimony under oath as part of a civil lawsuit involving a man, Doe 1, sexually abused as a child by former priest Thomas Adamson at St. Thomas Aquinas parish in St. Paul Park, Minnesota. Archbishop Carlson worked in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis handling child sexual abuse cases from 1979-1994 as the Chancellor and Auxiliary Bishop.”

Archbishop Carlson –  “I’m not sure whether I knew it [CSA] was a crime or not,”

Full deposition 5/23/14


Filed under Abuse

15 responses to “Archbishop Carlson – “I’m not sure whether I knew it [CSA] was a crime or not,”

  1. Lanark

    Let me get this right…. This “Holy” fuckwit apologist thug claims he didn’t know that raping a child was against the law? Fry this cunt to crispy strips on Old Sparky. Might help focus his thoughts a little.

  2. robert hutchings

    well at least he did not play the alzheimers card like greville janner and the amazing james randi

  3. artmanjosephgrech

    My bible re child care and where I purchased my own edition of Clark Hall and Morrison on Children in 1967 reminds that three Acts governed the position the 1933 Children and Young Persons Act, the Sexual offences Act of 1956 and the Indecency with Children Act 1960

    The 1949 Marriage Act also declared as void any lawful marriage contracted with a girl under 16 years of age. In Spain the lawful age remains 14 years.

    Under the Indecency with Children Act 1960 the reference was to children under the age of 14 years and mentions gross indecency but also uses the term incite which has been replaced by grooming
    Under the act however a wife or husband could not be compelled to give evidence in relation what happened within the marriage and their refusal to give evidence could become the subject of comment in the hearing, Also of interest is that under the important Sexual Offences Act 1956 clause 28 refers to causing indecent assault intercourse or prostitution of a girl aged under 16 years. There is no reference to a boy.

    However the clause only appears to apply to parent legal guardians or those with actual possession control custody or charge of the girl .
    The term Unlawful sexual intercourse does not appear to valid with a marriage

    The mailnlegislation re children at the time was the 1933 Children’s and Young Persons act which in Clause one refers to cruelty and its definition.
    It is noteworthy that a schoolmaster had the same right as a parent in inflicting punishment and the use of physical chastisement could not be used as an assault.. I am not sure when this position was subsequently changed. The use of corporal punished was covered in relation to Approved Schools remand homes attendance centres and probation hostels and homes

    Another noteworthy item is allowing child under 16 to be in a brothel the maximum prison was two months or a fine of £25 about £1000 plus today

    It was necessary to get a search warrant to find a girl under 16 who might be with man for sexual purposes and the law was raised by two years to 18 for someone who had been assessed as Mental Defective.

    It is important to remind that this was the position in what some still in my view misguidedly and without foundation talk of the golden age of child care under children’s departments

  4. paul

    11.45pm sunday BOOKTALK on bbc parliament channel. mark d’arcy talks to Derek laud about his book THE PROBLEM WITH IMMIGRANTS.

    • Sabre

      The problem with immigrants is that we ended up with Derek Laud !

    • Sabre

      Watched it. Laud made points good bad and indifferent on the subject of the discussion at hand.
      One wonders whether, in years to come, the interviewer will feign ignorance of ‘other issues’ re the interviewee.

      • Lord Janner

        You scallywag ;)

        ……..oh bugger! I’ve just shown I remember something.

      • artmanjosephgrech

        It is a common misconception that those with dementia lose all memory. They become locked in the past often as children and young adults in what can be described as a psychotic state which the only reality is where they are.

  5. Typical bureaucrat, covering his arse through Convenience Amnesia – “conveniently, I don’t remember – I can’t recall – I have no memory of that”.
    Interesting that you chose the “better a millstone” passage from Matthew for a lead in. That makes me curious as to whether you knew “Crazy Mike” Echols or were ever involved in his website ‘community’?

    • Hi JS, No don’t know anything about him or community or whether it would have been good or bad whether I did.

      I just recalled the quote from somewhere or other and thought it would sit nicely atop of this post.

      • Yes, it’s a favorite biblical passage for many people and very appropriate.
        Mike Echols was an American author and self-professed, amateur, pedophile hunter. He had a website titled: “Better A Millstone”, taken from that passage in Matthew. The site promoted him and his books, had some child abuse and predatory pedophile awareness essays also by him, and a very controversial gallery of children’s faces cropped from child sexual abuse images that was intended to facilitate identification of perpetrators. (That’s the wrong approach, as law enforcement discovered through their own experiments with that idea. Publicizing victim’s faces rarely leads to arrests, but it does incite unecessary fears, false identification of victims, false accusations about abusers, and ultimately violates laws prohibiting publicly identifying CSA victims- at least in spirit. Publicizing perpetrator’s faces leads to arrests, without as much unitended consequences).

        Anyway…Echols’ books on pedophile crime cases were best sellers and helped to raise awareness about child sexual abuse issues at that time. His book about Steven Stayner was particularly impactful, not only scaring many parents into more watchful guardianship of their kids, but also providing HOPE – and really for the first time – to family members of missing children, that their own loved one really could be found alive even after a decade or more without any trace or leads.

        Echols conducted his own, personal investigations into serious conspiracies of organized child abusers, at his own expense. He was very knowledgeable about some of these, especially NAMBLA, and he wasn’t a fantasist or a bullsh*t artist. I had respect for him on that count. He was also very active in an “underground” of amateur pedophile hunters, and was even more knowledgeable about that world and the persons involved in it. Unfortunately, when he had been drinking, all this knowledge incited paranoid delusions that his “friends” among the hunters were secretly working with his “enemies” among the pedophiles, to discredit and destroy him. That’s one of the reasons for the nickname: “Crazy Mike”.

        The other reason, was Echols’ obsession with victimizing CSA victims on behalf of other CSA victims. Not like the campaigner in-fighting you may be familiar with. Echols was obsessed with the idea that if a pedophile’s first victim(s) had immediately reported the perpetrator, there would never have been any subsequent victims. That idea is very simply, NOT TRUE. It is also “blaming the victim”, but Echols would never acknowledge that. In his mind, the actual abuser of “A” and “B” sort of dropped out of the picture, leaving first victim “A” personally responsible for the abuse suffered by “B” – as though “A” had inflicted that abuse himself! And Echols trolled victimized minors that he had identified as victims of a particular perpetrator, boys aged 13-16 mostly, hounding them for somehow failing to ensure the arrest & prosecution of their abuser immediately after the abuse took place. Which is…crazy!

      • LJMT

        It does. Jesus was probably referring to CSA in fact. It directly leads into the “if your foot offends thee, cut it off” passage, in which Jesus says it is better to enter heaven maimed than sin. The foot was a used as a polite euphemism for the male organ. So foot, hand, eye, in the context of children, he is pretty clear! Good choice. You can check what I have written in Mark ch 9 vv42-47. Many Christians don’t yet know this and I only realised it when I read an American lady.

        No excuse whatever for Christians to ignore Christ’s clear teaching. Wolves amongst the sheep.

  6. Jack

    That’s because he is guilty himself if aiding and abetting the abuse.

  7. Pingback: Archbishop Carlson – “I’m not sure whether I knew it [CSA] was a crime or not,” | Alternative News Network

  8. Sabre

    Is he fool or a liar ? He is a fool and a liar.