President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 02, 2006 09:00 AM UTC
25 Comments
My uncle was one of those molested by Harold Robert White. It took him until he was 40 years old before he could relate the story to his family. There’s not much debate about the specifics of the case, and there are corroborating witnesses. Harold White fled, and has been helped to hide by officials of the church. Abuse cases are a psychological tsunami, and expecting a confused and ashamed teenager to build a criminal case in two years isn’t reasonable.
My uncle’s dead now. His sister–my mom–contacted with Joan Fitz-Gerald about this, and Joan really took it to heart. I know it’s just the state legislature, but having the President of the Senate call you back for details and end up crying along with you really lets you know that at least someone in government cares.
The bill isn’t specifically anti-catholic of course. But the documented indcidents to date all involve the Denver Diocese. I am sympathetic about the harm this could cause the church–and my practicing Catholic mom is too–but sweeping it under the rug hasn’t helped anyone to date.
Perhaps if the Catholic Church spent half as much time on policing its rogue, child molesting priests instead of playing a shell game with them as it is spending opposing this and similar bills, there would not be as much of an issue.
Is anyone else troubled that Chaput seems to be defending child molesters. The message he seems to be sending is if the victim doesn’t speak up within the statute of limitations, “Cool, we’re off the hook!”.
Shame on you, ColoradoDem.
If you honestly believe that the Archbishop is defending child molesters, you’re obviously witless about what he’s saying here.
The only “protection” this bill offers is protection from victims from suing agencies such as public schools, governments, etc. etc.
And THAT’S the problem with this lame-brained, poor excuse for legislation – and that is entirely the point being made by the Archbishop.
Going the “black helicopter” route in arguing against something is not usually the best choice unless you think it is absolutely necessary to rally your base for support.
………….
What is this supposed to mean?
Read the Archbishop’s statements re: FitzGerald’s testimony. She claimed that she never consulted with an attorney on the matter – and yet the Archbishop points out where she did.
So who’s lying? FitzGerald or the Archbishop?
Emphasizing the problem in public schools, Nevada resident Terri Miller, president of Stop Educator Sexual Abuse, Misconduct and Exploitation (SESAME), cited an example that happened in her daughter?s school.
?A teacher in my daughter?s school was still allowed to teach despite a history of sexual misconduct in three different states,? Miller said. ?The teacher was allowed to move from one job to another and was never punished. And this is not an isolated case.?
SB 143 co-sponsor Sen. Joan Fitz-Gerald exited before Miller spoke. SESAME?s Miller later told the Denver Catholic Register: ?I was surprised when Senator Fitz-Gerald did not stay for my testimony. I was a little disappointed that she didn?t stay because I thought I had some very valid information to share, to help educate on this problem from a national standpoint.?
************************
Ah yes, the courageous “leader” Fitz-Gerald, who astutely leaves so as not to hear another side of the issue.
One of the interesting effects of the statute of limitations change legislation, which is consuming the lobbying efforts of Chaput, combined with a shift of emergency contraception legislation from being about mandating that hospitals (even Catholic ones) provide EC information, to legislation permitting pharmacists to provide EC without a doctor’s prescription (which Catholic run pharmacies could choose not to do), is that it pretty much neutralizes the impact of Catholic Church lobbying on the EC issue, making passage of a bill that doesn’t get vetoed (Owens cited Catholic objectives to the mandatory nature of the last bill as his main reason for the last veto), much more likely.
BMR,
The question of whether or not Fitz-Gerald consulted an attorney seems like a non sequitur. Do you have a link to this testimony? Why do you consider that the important part of this story?
I think you’re mistaken in your previous comment. “The systematic dismantling and pillaging of the Catholic community nationawide” was entirely the point of Caput’s remarks. He needs a tinfoil hat, black helicopters are optional.
The real issue with this piece of legislation is precisely about nearly anyone coming to terms with this kind of “person of trust” sexual abuse in two years IS entirely unrealistic. Any psychologist who has dealt with this issue will confirm this.
Why would he call this bill “anti-Catholic”? It addresses the problem of sexual abuse, period. What a VERY dumb thing to say.
In Colorado, you have six years to sue to collect a contractual debt. How exactly is it anti-Catholic to give people six years from reaching adulthood to sue for sexual abuse? Preposterous, but typical Chaput. The consequence of course will be to persuade a decent number of Catholic voters that Democrats are anti-Catholic. Surely that’s no part of his motivation.
I have seen bits about “friendly” amendments that would extend the statute to public servants (school employees)… Calling this bill “anti-Catholic” is ridiculous – it doesn’t target any specific institution.
As to Chaput’s “defending” child molesters, one of the biggest problems the Church has right now is that they keep these priests within their ranks, shuffling them through the system to keep them away from their sordid pasts. If the Church would finally say “enough is enough” and do to these priests what they do to gay priests, or uncelibate priests – i.e. kick them out of the priesthood – then they wouldn’t have nearly as much of a problem. Until the Church owns up to its own inability to deal with the situation, they don’t get a lot of sympathy from me.
Read again, they’re getting rid of the entire statute of limitations for two years:
“The bill would eliminate the civil statute of limitations for a two-year period so that victims of sex abuse could sue their alleged abusers and their employers, no matter how old the case.”
This could lead to death by a thousand frivilous lawsuits for any institution that followed the advice of crackpot psychs, like many bishops did back in the ’70s and ’80s.
The exemption for public institutions also removes any state incentive for keeping these things from getting out of hand.
(Wasn’t this site supposed to stay out of policy disputes? Or has that changed, now?)
Kevin, I did not miss that provision and think it ill-advised. But it is no more anti-Catholic than the rest of it, unless you believe that the Catholic church was the only non-governmental institution which tolerated harassers.
An observation:
Yes, and what about John Paul II and the Church’s dirty little secret with regard to the pederasts within the priesthood and the Church’s quiet protection of those deviates? I don’t believe I’ve ever heard or read of anything John Paul II said or wrote or did which spoke directly to the molestation of innocent boys by the very real — as opposed to the ideological –evil of fucked-up priests within the holy womb of mother Church? No, what I recall was John Paul II’s most public and telling action of bringing Cardinal Bernard F. Law from Boston (where he had ignored, botched, hidden the sexual abuses by priests against children and for which, Bostonians demanded his removal); yes, John Paul II brought Cardinal Bernard F. Law from Boston — where tar and feathers were being prepared — and gave him a promotion to archpriest of one of the four basilicas under Vatican direction in Rome, St. Mary Major Basilica.
Chaput, doth protest too much, methinks or, in the grand tradition of John Paul II, chooses to shift the polemic away from where it surely ought to be directed and that is directly toward the great “princes” of the church, like Chaput.
Forgive me, but–as a lifelong Catholic (now surely lapsed)–Chaput’s politicizing of this issue as representing the harbinger of collapse of the church in America is not only disgustingly religiously jingoistic but clearly mirroring a page from Dubya’s war on terror. You don’t make war against a word. You make war against an entity or a nation or a disease or an inhumanity. In this case, that war should be against the intentional, disgustingly high-level orchestrated coverup of priests molesting innocents.
If this bill appears “anti-catholic” then, well, perhaps that’s where the proper emphasis ought to lie.
Well, with sentiments like those voiced by George, it’s no wonder an anti-Catholic motive appears to be a reasonable suspicion.
My solution to clerical pederasts is enactment and strict enforcement of anti-sodomy laws, but that’s been rendered unconstitutional and untenable by the libertine wing of the Democratic party.
Does, Mr. Jones, the historical record of the actions of the Catholic Church with respect to this disgusting embroglio even–just a wee, wee bit–focus some of your attention on, indeed, the ACTIONS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH and its response? This has nothing to do with “anti-sodomy” laws. This has everything to do with the molestation of young boys by priests or persons of trust and authority.
I’m curious how anyone could support sheilding any institution that may be sheilding child molesters.
What Fitz-Gerald, much as I don’t care for her, has proposed is not anti-Catholic. It is anti-Pedophile.
Chaput appears to come down on the pro-Pedophile side of the argument.
I’m curious how anyone could support sheilding any institution that may be sheilding child molesters.
What Fitz-Gerald, much as I don’t care for her, has proposed is not anti-Catholic. It is anti-Pedophile.
Chaput appears to come down on the pro-Pedophile side of the argument.
Gecko, for once I wholeheartedly agree with you – total NAMBLA.
“This has nothing to do with “anti-sodomy” laws. This has everything to do with the molestation of young boys by priests or persons of trust and authority.”
The molestations were enabled by the past few decades’ dismissive or even celebratory attitude towards sodomy and youthful “sexual exploration,” in both secular and “trendy” Catholic circles. The grossly sinful and negligent clerical trash-passing couldn’t have taken place without the wink-and-nod attitude that prevailed in many seminaries, movie theaters, and college campuses. Draconianism has its upsides.
I don’t doubt that in a few more years, child molestation will become the next hip object of veneration, just as gay marriage was unthinkable a decade back and is now a sign of progressive thinking.
But in the meantime, the spiritually suicidal such as yourself will justify obviously flawed acts of legal plundering.
Chaput just comes off as a partisan defender of pedophiles, especially those who happened to be employees of the Catholic Church. The church would do better to accept moral and financial responsibility for shielding its employee pedophiles, and to apologize to the victims – and to society – for not promptly reporting those crimes to law enforcement. How can any organization deny responsibility for shielding employees who used their positions of trust to perpetrate their ugly crimes? Chaput would do better to acknowledge responsibility, instead of attacking the victims and the legislators who are trying to help them.
Kevin,
You seriously need to get laid!
Kevin,
You seriously need to get laid!
Kevin, you know nothing of my spiritual side. So, kindly don’t presume that it is “suicidal.”
I’m reminded of e.e. cummings, “I Sing of Olaf.”
“Christ (of His mercy infinite)
i pray to see; and Olaf, too
preponderantlingly because
unless statistics lie he was
more brave than me: more blond than you.”
My spirituality, Kevin, probably profoundly eclipses your rather crude perception of reality (and consequential moral arrogance) to the point where, if push came to shove, the sordid, dark corners of Chaput’s Catholicism would surely reveal much more than pederasty.
The way to protect kids is to add an amendment to current legislation which would remove statute of limitations on all FUTURE abuse allegations. Plus, the behavior of institutional employees, including clergy, which allows the moving around of abusers, should be classified, for the FUTURE, as constituting criminal conspiracy. Then see how Caput reacts.