« AOL-Huffpo merger gives liberal media a huge, new platform | Afghan Red Cross worker with one leg set to be hanged for conversion to Christianity »
PrintFebruary 7, 2011
The Independent's Over-the-top Anti-Catholic Bias
Except for those still caught in the web of the media matrix, it's no secret that the Fossil Press seeks to destroy conservatism, tradition and Christianity. It's also plain that central to this are unrelenting attacks on the Catholic Church. But a February 5 piece in The Independent written by one Michael Day reaches a low worthy of Cold War commissars.
The article concerns the fact that Pope Benedict XVI's status as an organ donor ended when he ascended to the papacy and is titled, "Pope's organs are too holy to donate to mortals, says Church." Wow, that sounds really bad. It must be an example of the Church hierarchy superciliously placing itself above the hoi polloi. Except that a discerning person may smell a rat; in this case, a journalism-school rat who would never let the Truth get in the way of a cherished agenda. And, sure enough, while Day repeats the supposed Vatican sentiment in his first paragraph, a little ways further down is the real explanation for the Church's policy:
Archbishop Zymunt Zimowski, a member of the Vatican health council, said it was because the body of the Pope effectively belonged to the entire Catholic Church. "It's understandable that the body of the Pontiff should rest intact because, in his role as successor to Saint Paul and universal pastor of the Catholic Church, he belongs entirely to the Church in spirit and body," he told La Repubblica.
Obviously, the Church never stated what Day attributed to her. And while the writer goes on to claim that the Vatican hasn't always adhered to this policy and thus lacks credibility, the real issue is his lack of journalistic credibility. If his piece were an op-ed, such a presentation would be bad enough. But note that it is supposed to be hard news. It's more like hard propaganda.
Day might try to lawyer the matter and point out that he didn't include quotation marks around the "Church" statement, but he knew exactly what he was doing. A reader not very careful or inclined toward anti-Christian bigotry would likely be left with the impression that the statement is the Church's. So I guess we know what The Independent is independent of: integrity.
As for religious teaching, lots of faiths have doctrines that raise secular eyebrows -- but not all faiths get Day's treatment. As to this, I wonder when he'll pen a story about how Muslims often consider infidels unclean and don't even want to touch a Koran that has been defiled by kafir hands. Something tells me we may have to wait for that one, as Day and his militant secular ilk haven't finished destroying Western civilization yet.
These dummies just can't wait to be dhimmis, can they?
