A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Gazette, March 20, on media focusing more on sexual abuse cases when it has to do with the church:
Recent news reports have taken the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church to an unprecedented level, trying to link it to Pope Benedict XVI—possibly the most powerful religious leader in the world.
The media have done a laudable job scrutinizing Catholic hierarchy, much to the benefit of children. It would be nice if there were as much concern about the millions of children raped, groped and molested outside of the church, by people who aren’t quite as newsworthy as priests but have at least as much authority over our youths.
The latest church stories have examined the pope’s reign as archbishop of Munich from March 1977 to February 1982. Reports have revealed at least one case of an abusive priest who was reassigned while working under then-Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, and the abuser went on to abuse again. Priests don’t answer directly to an archbishop, and the man who served as vicar general at the time—the man whom priests did answer to directly when Ratzinger was archbishop—has taken full responsibility. He says Ratzinger was not informed of the allegations and transfer. Still, the archbishop is ultimately responsible for what goes on in his organization, so the scrutiny is fair.
John Allen, Jr., a Denver-based writer for the National Catholic Reporter, wrote that as leader of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the position he held before becoming pope, Ratzinger may have been the most vigilant defender of children in church hierarchy. Allen spent years covering Ratzinger while working as the Vatican correspondent for the Reporter and later as a correspondent for CNN.
“Of the 500-plus cases that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dealt with prior to Benedict’s election to the papacy, the substantial majority were returned to the local bishop authorizing immediate action against the accused priest—no canonical trial, no lengthy process, just swift removal from ministry and, often, expulsion from the priesthood,” Allen wrote.
“In a more limited number of cases, the congregation asked for a canonical trial, and in a few cases, the congregation ordered the priest reinstated … in the complex world of court politics at the Vatican, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith became the beachhead for an aggressive response to the sexual abuse crisis. Ratzinger and his deputies sometimes squared off against other departments which regarded the ‘zero tolerance’ policy as an over-reaction.”
It’s hard to imagine an over-reaction to credible evidence that a priest has abused anyone. Yet some in the church have confused legitimate abuse allegations as part of a blatant and thorough media attack on Catholicism.
If Allen is correct about then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s handling of sexual abuse, then Pope Benedict XVI is someone who could set a constructive example for the vast culture of ranking public school officials who have ignored a much larger sexual abuse crisis for years.
“Students in America’s schools are groped. They’re raped. They’re pursued, seduced and think they’re in love,” stated an Associated Press report on a yearlong study the agency concluded in 2007. The series reported that public school administrators routinely transfer abusive teachers from one school district to the next.
“The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests,” wrote Carol Shakeshaft, author of a U.S. Department of Education study ordered by Congress in 2002.
Sherryll Kraizer, executive director of the Denver-based Safe Child Program, told The Gazette’s editorial department that it’s commonplace for public school principals and teachers to neglect laws that require them to report sexual abuse.
“I see it regularly,” said Kraizer, a professional witness for prosecutors and defense lawyers in childhood sexual abuse cases. “There are laws against failing to report, but the law is almost never enforced. Almost never.”
The media are to be applauded for relentlessly exposing the scandal in the church, and even the pope isn’t above honest and thorough scrutiny of his past service.
But the much larger crisis remains in our public schools today, where children are raped and groped every day in the United States. The media and others must maintain their watchful eye on the Catholic Church and other religious institutions. But it’s no less tragic when a child gets abused at school.
Editorial:
———
Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald, March 17, on Justice Department providing defense attorneys for terror suspects:
In 1770, British troops who were called in to keep the peace in Boston were attacked by crowds who protested the increasing erosion of their rights and freedoms.
In a melee later called the Boston Massacre, the troops opened fire on the civilians, killing five of them.
They were charged criminally for their actions, and they had trouble finding anyone to defend them; after all, they had no friends in the colonies, and the acts were seen as atrocities by the local population.
In stepped John Adams, a prominent Massachusetts attorney, who defended them (quite ably, as murder charges were reduced to manslaughter) and set the tone of the nation as one defined by law and where all defendants deserve defense.
Against this history, it is shocking that a group called Keep America Safe, which includes Elizabeth Cheney on its board of directors, would call into question the fact that the Department of Justice employs people who have defended terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
In a video posted to the group’s Web site, they portray the Department of Justice as the “Department of Jihad,” as if those who had worked to defend detainees were not worthy of employment.
In fact, the defense of suspects in heinous crimes is a necessary component of our judicial system, as it requires the government to prosecute cases to the fullest extent of the law and beyond a reasonable doubt.
Attorneys often have to present cases with which they may not agree, but in doing so, affirm the values on which this nation was founded.
Those who suggest otherwise have lost sight of the bigger picture.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Denver Post, March 21 on U.S. Forest Service opting not to expand skiing development:
The U.S. Forest Service’s decision not to expand skiing and development at Crested Butte has angered and perplexed many in the ski and snowboarding community and led to concerns that the agency has grown reluctant to allow future expansions.
We don’t at all fault resorts for their concern; however, our understanding of the Crested Butte decision and our ongoing discussions with the Forest Service convince us that the agency is committed to responsible expansion at resorts. Responsible is the key word.
We hope the ski industry and the Forest Service can maintain the good relationship they have had for decades. The ski industry is a vital part of Colorado’s economy—adding an average of about $2.6 billion to the tourism industry each year.
Competition among resorts and states with good snow is intense, leading operators to invest millions each year on the kinds of upgrades that keep the riders coming.
So it’s understandable that Crested Butte Mountain Resort wished to add lifts to nearby Snodgrass Mountain. Operators in the remote mountain town, which has a reputation for steep and demanding terrain, have seen a substantial decline in visits and had hoped to build gentler intermediate trails on Snodgrass to attract more vacationers.
Lifts and trails on Snodgrass also would have allowed new real-estate development.
But the Crested Butte permit application was troubled by environmental factors, including worries about erosion on Snodgrass, and a divided community. Some in the town of 1,600 were concerned the expansion would diminish quality of life there.
Other Colorado towns with resorts for neighbors face similar questions.
In Breckenridge, community turmoil led Vail Resorts to step back from its pursuit to expand lift service and development on Peak 6. The matter now is under review by a task force that includes community members worried that expanding the major resort could overwhelm the town.
Rocky Mountain Regional Forester Rick Cables, himself a skier, tells us that his agency hasn’t changed its process. Rather, he says, Colorado has changed.
In the last 10 years, Cables says, the state’s population has grown by more than a million, concerns about climate change have heated up, baby boomers are beginning to exit the slopes and many other uses of federal lands have become popular.
Add to that the tension over growth in mountain towns and the permitting process becomes far more complex than it was when lift tickets cost $7 and skiers could drive up Interstate 70 on Saturday morning without traffic.
As lovers of Colorado’s mountains, we think the Forest Service is correct to take these new pressures into consideration in its duty to protect our public lands.
Editorial:
———
The Greeley Tribune, March 21, on danger of continuing to raise costs and reduce budgets in higher education:
It seems like the news for higher education these days just goes from bad to worse.
University of Northern Colorado President Kay Norton announced recently the institution will next year likely seek the maximum tuition increase allowed under law—9 percent—to help offset an anticipated decrease in state funding.
This announcement came on the heels of widespread cuts announced by Aims Community College, which include closing several facilities, including the Monfort Early Childhood Education Center and the downtown Greeley campus. Aims is anticipating a budget shortfall of almost $2.2 million, and Aims President Marsi Liddell has said tuition increases may be on the horizon.
Both of these announcements renew fears that higher education costs in Colorado are far outpacing the average student’s ability to pay and that gaining an advanced degree may become possible only for the wealthy.
That’s why we once again call on our state legislators to find a way to keep higher education from suffering the kind of cuts proposed.
The Colorado Legislature has been reluctant this session to attempt any overhaul of the way funding is prioritized, killing several bills that would force the state to revamp its budgeting system. We believe, as do many voters, there is still waste in state government—savings that can be found in cleaning up the way the state conducts business and cutting out waste.
We also believe universities and colleges need to undergo similar waste-cutting measures. That’s why we are proud of Aims for taking the difficult step of cutting some programs and eliminating campuses in an effort to consolidate facilities and cut expenditures, and keep those cuts as far away from the bulk of its students as possible.
We hope UNC will continue to review programs that might be struggling and look for ways to save money before asking students to take on additional tuition burden.
What is most frightening to us in this whole unfortunate situation is that, at least where higher education is concerned, solving a short-term budget problem will have long-term ramifications.
By continuing to whittle away at who can access higher education, we are limiting the opportunities for a large segment of our population. In turn, those residents may not be able to find good-paying jobs and will continue to struggle and limit contributions to the general economy, possibly even becoming a drain on our public assistance programs.
In addition, we have the potential to create a trained work force shortage, which will not only affect our current industry and businesses, but will certainly limit Colorado’s ability to attract new industry and business.
We are creating a vicious circle by continuing to erode funding for higher education in this state. Our lawmakers, our governing boards for colleges and universities, and our taxpayers in general need to find a way to give higher education a steady funding source.
Otherwise, it’s difficult to envision a time when there will be any good news for students, parents and our institutions of higher education.
Editorial:
