ACLU Wins Case Against Catholic Social Services

AMDG

Activist Attorney Jeff Anderson Misrepresents Archbishop Carlson

Edit: The Kulturkampf continues. Here's a statement the Archdiocese of St. Louis.  Once again, a dishonest tactic employed by an activist attorney has misrepresented and defamed the good name of Archbishop Carlson.

I suspect this is an actionable item?  For the record:

This statement is intended to clear up confusion generated by the release on June 9, 2014, of a videotaped deposition of Arhbishop Robert J. Carlson, Archbishop of St. Louis. This deposition was taken in a lawsuit for damages pending in a Minnesota state court relating to events that occurred more than 30 years ago in Minnesota. Neither Archbishop Carlson nor the Archdiocese of St. Louis is a party to this case. Further, the Archbishop has been previously deposed by the same Plaintiff’s counsel on at least three separate prior occasions in the 1980s focused on the activities of the same priest that he was again asked about last month – 27 years later. Recent inaccurate and misleading reporting by certain media outlets has impugned Archbishop Carlson’s good name and reputation. During a press conference held on June 9, 2014, Plaintiff’s lawyer strategically took Archbishop Carlson’s response to a question out of context and suggested that the Archbishop did not know that it was a criminal offense for an adult to molest a child. Nothing could be further from the truth. Contrary to what is being reported, Archbishop Carlson is and has been a leader in the Church when it comes to recognizing and managing matters of sexual abuse involving the clergy. As far back as 1980, then-Father Carlson wrote “This behavior cannot be tolerated” in a memo referencing a priest’s abusive actions (Exhibit 301 of this case).

In the deposition video, which was released by Plaintiff’s counsel, the dialogue between Plaintiff’s counsel and Archbishop Carlson focused on Archbishop Carlson’s knowledge of Minnesota child abuse reporting statutes and when clergy became mandatory reporters. In the full transcript of Archbishop Carlson’s deposition, the actual exchange between Archbishop Carlson and Plaintiff’s counsel is quite different from what is being widely reported in the media. Plaintiff’s counsel began his line of questioning as follows:

Q. Well, mandatory reporting laws went into effect across the nation in 1973, Archbishop.

Charles Goldberg, attorney representing Archbishop Carlson at this deposition, explained that while current Minnesota law makes it a crime for clergy persons not to report suspected child abuse, that statute did not become effective until 1988. What Plaintiff’s counsel has failed to point out to the media is that Mr. Goldberg himself noted at this point in the deposition “you’re talking about mandatory reporting?” (emphasis added). When the Archbishop said “I’m not sure whether I knew it was a crime or not,” he was simply referring to the fact that he did not know the year that clergy became mandatory reporters of suspected child abuse (pgs. 108-109).

At another point in the deposition, the Plaintiff’s counsel attacked Archbishop Carlson about the answer “I don’t remember,” to which the archbishop’s legal counsel objected:

Q. [Plaintiff’s Counsel] Can you tell me today that you have no memory of ever having advised anybody to report to the police…? MR. GOLDBERG: Just a minute. I’m going to register an objection to that question. As I mentioned at the outset…you personally, Mr. Anderson, have deposed Archbishop Carlson on June 21st, 1985; March 30th, 1987; April 2nd, 1987; and May 4th, 1987 about each of these matters in some detail of which you had over 30 exhibits marked in those depositions, and I think in fairness to the Archbishop, if you want to ask him about these things and get specific answers, he needs to see these documents, because no human being can be expected to remember, regardless of how outrageous some of these matters may have appeared, to explain in detail those things to you without a reference to these depositions 25 to 30 years ago (pg. 19).

On page 22 of the transcript, Plaintiff’s counsel questions the Archbishop, who had repeatedly requested and was denied the ability to review case documents pertaining to the questions asked of him, and who, 27 years after last being deposed, is now being maligned for his inability to recall certain events.

To reiterate, Archbishop Carlson is not a party in this case, nor has he committed a crime. He has not only voluntarily participated in this legal process, he has offered his testimony as clearly and thoughtfully as possible, given both the span of time in which this discovery process has taken place and accessibility to certain documents.

The media reports of this deposition have not only called into question the exemplary record Archbishop Carlson has amassed during his more than 40 years of ministry, but has also reopened the wounds of survivors of the heinous act of sexual abuse, and has caused further pain to the Catholic Faithful, both here in the Archdiocese of St. Louis and beyond. These misleading and inaccurate reports have also resulted in negative commentary both in traditional as well as social media outlets. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Archbishop Carlson and the Catholic Church abhor any form of sexual abuse.

H/t Deacon Kandra. 

Socialist Sweden More Dangerous for Children than Catholic Church

Editor: Andrew Brown at the Guardian is offering his analysis of the American Catholic Bishops' report on sex crimes.  First of all, in contrast to Brown, it seems pretty clear that the moral permissiveness and relativism promoted during the "sexual revolution" had something to do with this.  When sick individuals like Allen Ginsberg were pursuing adolescents, the thing was glossed over, since geniuses aren't held to the same standards as the lower classes. But what if Socialist Sweden is more dangerous to children than the Catholic Church?  A lot of people won't believe you, but here are the figures in case anyone is interested in the injustice of this hoax and how it's been manipulated by the Media-Entertainment complex.

[Guardian] For comparison, the Swedish figures for reported sex crimes against all children under 15 was 142/100,000 children in 1992, and 169/100,000 in 2001.

These figures suggest that during the 1990s a child in Sweden, possibly the most secularised country in Europe, was between 10 and 30 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than an American Catholic was by his priest. Even making allowances for the considerable margin of error that must be built into these figures, it's clear that what went on in US Catholic churches was terrible but rather less terrible than what went on at the same time in many other places where Catholicism was not involved. If the US Catholic church is a hotbed of child rape, Sweden is an awful lot worse. (Just to be clear here, I think the idea that Sweden is a dangerous country for children is entirely absurd.)

I picked Sweden for comparison largely because I know my way round the crime statistics there. But the US government figures quoted in the John Jay report show also that Alaska has a rate of reported child abuse that dwarfs Sweden's – 788/100,000 in 2001, or 140 times the incidence of reported child abuse in the US Catholic church at the same period. So there is nothing uniquely rotten about the American Catholic church.

H/t Pewsitter.

ACLU's Goal is Communism

Editor: Jeff Anderson is an ACLU member and given much money to them. You have to wonder what his motivations are when he aggressively litigates against slow moving targets like the Oregon Jesuit Province. Here's the link article from Spero News:

Ironic, isn't it? So much for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." By combining straightforward segments from each ACLU rendering we arrive with an accurate portrayal. One that cuts through the doublespeak:

The ACLU is...working daily in courts, legislatures and communities. Communism is the goal.

In 1931, just eleven years after the ACLU's inception, the US Congress convened a Special House Committee to Investigate Communist Activities. On the ACLU it reported:

The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press and free assembly, but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is an attempt to protect the communists.

Bishop Dolan Trashes Attorney ACLU Anderson

Editor: Finally, ++Dolan is catching on. He's an ACLU, Democratic National Convention supporter.

Groundless Gossip

I owe it to all of you — both the Catholic and wider community — to be very clear about the ridiculous and groundless gossip spread about me by a tort lawyer named Jeff Anderson.

You may have heard this man claim that, when I was Archbishop of Milwaukee, I “hid’ $130 million of archdiocesan funds so victims of clergy sexual abuse could not sue for it.

Malarkey! The Archdiocese of Milwaukee has an excellent record of fiscal integrity and transparency.  I worked hard at that, and my successor, Archbishop Listecki, continues to do so.  (By the way, you might also be interested to know that during my years as Archbishop of Milwaukee, and with the generous service of many dedicated people, we established a mediation process that reached settlements with almost 200 victim survivors; that mediation process has been praised by the victim survivors who have participated in the process.)

From the Diocesan paper, here.

H/t: Catholic Culture.

Vatican rejects suit over Milwaukee priest’s abuse - The Daily Cardinal - News

They need to send these jackals running in terror. These ACLU associated attacks coupled with the NYTs schmear  need to be faced squarely and denounced.

The really sad thing is that many of the Church's sons can't see through this Marxist bit of homosexual non-sense.

Vatican rejects suit over Milwaukee priest’s abuse - The Daily Cardinal - News

Profile on the Author of the Milwaukee Schmear Against Pope Benedict

What you have here is a man who has unseen loyalties to powers and principalities, to organizations that have the destruction of the Catholic Church as their fundamental aim. This is the motive force behind the current orchestrated scandal, perhaps it's a part of what Fr. Malachi Martin termed, the "Superforce".

Jeffry Anderson is described as a man, ironically, on a "Crusade" against the Catholic Church. It's not just Jeffrey Anderson who is liable to be described in this way. Certain individuals, indeed, entire nations and political movements in history, have enjoyed and benefitted from their enmity with the Catholic Church, entities like Stalin's Soviet Union and Hitler's Germany. Like the aforementioned regimes, Jeff Anderson has a certain affiliation and kinship to powers of such malevolence, that their hatred of Christ was the scene of mass starvation and some of the greatest untold crimes of the last two centuries. What shouldn't be so startling to anyone is the fact that Communists do use the tactics being employed by Jeff Anderson, here. The erstwhile graduate from the provincial William Mitchel School of Law,  has come to do battle with the Catholic Church, as a member of the American and Minnesota Civil Liberties Unions and also claims a certain spiritual connection with a vague and ambient spirituality reminiscent of Gnosticism, which is fitting since his claims must certainly rely and on occult knowledge of a diabolical nature.

Now, we've mentioned that he is a member of the culturally Marxist, ACLU and Minnesota Civil Liberties Union. Their hostility to Catholicism in particular and religion in general is well-established, so then it follows logically that Mr. Anderson is acting according to his principles in attacking the Catholic Church, since we can hopefully assume that he shares the views and tactics of those antagonists of Religion.

But what of the Pedophile Connection?

Well, Jeff claims to be attacking the Catholic Church on behalf of the victims. Perhaps they are more of a utility than a heartfelt aspiration on his part to see Justice done. Indeed, he had been taking these cases for 10 years prior to the event of his daughter's alleged molestation, which he maintains was what began his "Crusade" in earnest, at the hands of an ex-priest who was acting as a therapist to deal with emotional issues related to his divorce. Catholicism rejects divorce, but surely, he bears some responsibility for that and sending your daughter to an ex-priest: isn't that res ipse loquitur that the negligence belongs to the nature of the act of sending one's 8 year old daughter to an ex-priest as a result of one's own inability to hold together one's own family?

Lest you think we're being unfair, it has to be said that Mr. Anderson wasn't being terribly fair when he failed to contact any of the key figures in the case beforehand for their account, indeed, when you compare the two stories alongside, Mr. Anderson's suffers from a profound lack of coherence and, well, just plain old truth. Mr. Anderson maintains that the Catholic Church had covered up the abuse and had not done anything about it, and is clumsily attempting to portray Pope Benedict as engaging in a cover up, when the details of the case indicate plainly otherwise, that it was in fact the Vatican that stepped in and dealt with the case in 2005 as Father Thomas Brandage indicates, here calling Jeff Anderson's and the New York Times' work, "sloppy and inaccurate".

Is Archbishop Weakland a Good Source?

Well, he's been caught lying so many times that it's strange that the New York Times would rely on him as a source, as Father Raymond de Souza points out here as he lays out his own timeline of events related to the case, in defense of the Papacy, here.

Father de Souza maintains that +Weakland isn't a good source because he himself is an abuser who stole $450,000 to pay an extortionist, but what of our ACLU and MCLU member and "Crusder" Jeff Anderson whose supposed concern for the poor is far more interwoven with an international effort to discredit the Church, by any means necessary, even resorting to libel.

The Democratic Connection

We made a moment out of Jeff Anderson's supposed concern for the victims of clergy abuse, but what about the potential future victims of Democratic Party Politician abuse as the Democratic party intends on decriminalizing sex with children and wants to count pederasts as a protected class in Hate Crimes Legislation, here, and the vote count, here.

Never mind that, in a strange parallel, it is the German politician, Sabina Leuthesser, who is attacking the Catholic Church in Germany, like the Democratic Party in the United States, a party for the normalization of sex with children. Now you might not think that Jeff Anderson would have anything to do with this, but it was, after all, his party and co-religionists in Germany who are promoting the normalization of sex with children. We say this because Mr. Anderson has given a portion of the millions (according to Bill Donahue), to the various extremely liberal candidates and committees of the Democratic Party, here, as his contributions approach $60,000 in the year 2008.

Mr. Anderson professes a love for "spiritual" things and as a baptized Lutheran who was once married to a Catholic, indeed, he sits amidst what looks like a religious arts and furnishings shop (or pirate's trove) at his St. Paul office, it probably serves him well to soften his image by an appeal to the vague spiritual confessions held by so many people who'll be susceptible to his misleading and frankly mendacious account of the Pope Benedict's involvement in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee with Father Lawrence Murphy who was suspended from priestly duties in 1985 when he was dismissed from the St. John's School for the Deaf about which, he again wrongfully declares, that then Cardinal Ratzinger attempted to cover it up.

Unsatisfactory Results

If the quality of Mr. Anderson's efforts as a public relations man is any reflection on his legal abilities, it would be easy to see why he was outmaneuvered (deliberately?) at St. John's Abbey in Collegeville, Minnesota where he stage managed his confrontation with what he called centuries of "secrecy" and abuse of power.

We wonder why Mr. Anderson doesn't do more to chase the pederasts in the party he supports with the money he gains, but what of his effectiveness in dealing with pederasts in the past? Well, at St. John's Abbey in Collegeville where he began, the arrangement he helped forge there is no longer effectively in place and the very liberal Benedictines, who shares many of his political believes and those of the Democratic Party, are no longer in place. The 10 or so credibly accused pederasts at St. John's are free to roam the globe, despite the false claims of "restriction". One of the priests, Father Dunstan Morse, has even appeared in photographs with acclaimed author Kathleen Norris as a consultant to her book, Cloister Walk, here(pdf) and in her more recent book, Acedia and Me, here (pdf). It might be easy to see how those on the outside might view Mr. Anderson's legal work as uninspiring.

Well, the Mexican Government was certainly unimpressed with Mr. Anderson and David Clohessy's efforts, as they were barred for five years from entering Mexico when they attempted to serve the Archbishop of Mexico City.

If it weren't for all of the lawsuits he's filed against them over the years, considering the non-enforceable agreement he made with him and the fact that none of the perpetrators went to jail. It might be easy to see how they were in collusion together; perpetuating the problem, rather than adverse parties as we might suppose if we believed what was in the pages of Pinchy Sulzberger's New York Times.