This week marks the anniversary of two notable deaths: Terri
Schiavo on March 31, and Pope John Paul II on April 2. Their
passing led to oceans of coverage by the national media seeking
typically not to report the stories but to explain it all to us.
And, as usual when it comes to matters of faith, they got it
wrong.
The liberal media, like many on the left, are heavily invested
in what the late pope referred to as the “culture of death.” From
the promotion of abortion on demand to pointing out the supposed
benevolence of euthanasia, the Schiavo case and the pope’s
impending death gave them ample opportunities to advance their
agenda.
And they did not disappoint, using their preferred tool of
choice, polling. Today, rather than reflecting popular opinion,
most polls merely measure the effectiveness of media propaganda, as
demonstrated by an ABC poll widely touted last year which said that 63
percent of those polled supported the removal of Terri Schiavo’s
feeding tube.
The wording of the poll reflected the media’s reportage that was
inaccurate at best and downright false at worst. It began, “Schiavo
suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years.
Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is
irreversible.”
The term “life support” conjures up images of all sorts of
machinery necessary to keep a dying person alive, as opposed to
reality, which was that Mrs. Schiavo had a feeding tube inserted
three times a day providing that which keeps us all alive.
In truth, she was a brain-disabled individual with an otherwise
healthy body who had no terminal illness or condition. In an honest
media, the second sentence would have begun, “Some doctors,” as
there were at least 33 sworn affidavits on file by medical
personnel who severely disagreed with the diagnosis cited by
ABC.
Yet, in the face of their polling that suggested the majority of
Americans favored the removal of her feeding tube, many leftists
opined that congressional Republicans were using Terri Schiavo for
political gain when they acted to try to save her life. How to
justify these conflicting views? The media’s answer of course is
that they acted to mollify the “religious right”; but did they?
Liberals ginning up for the upcoming elections tout their
opposition to the bills passed in the House and Senate which
ordered federal courts to conduct de novo hearings in the Schiavo
case. In fact, only 58 Democrats voted against the legislation in
the House, while in the Senate, not one Democrat had the guts to
vote against the bill as it was passed by a “voice vote,” in which
the names or numbers of Senators voting on each side are not
recorded.
In trying to stop her state-ordered execution, the actions of
Congress in the Schiavo case demonstrate that our politicians know
that it is not only the religious right but the majority of
Americans who take matters of life, death, and faith seriously.
Sadly, our media are far behind in that regard.
Likewise, the death of Pope John Paul II was confusing to the
media. While lauding most of his papacy, the liberal press looked
hungrily forward to his successor, sure that the Catholic Church
would soon be in the hands of a more “modern” shepherd.
The press in general, and the New York Times
particularly, canvassed the nation in search of what are referred
to as cafeteria Catholics to denounce the moral teachings of the
Church as misbegotten, misogynistic, and medieval. They succeeded
in one spectacularly biased story where they found all of seven Catholics
who “find a way to stay in their faith by adhering to values most
important to them and quietly ignoring those they disagree
with.”
To augment the arguments of the sometime faithful, opinion
pieces by theological scholars and rogue clerics filled the pages
of liberal newspapers with titles like, “John Paul’s years of unfulfilled potential,”
“A Divider, Not a Uniter: the Legacy of Pope John
Paul II” and “No Praise for Pope from AIDS Campaigners,” which
suggested that it is the Church, and not rampant homosexual and
promiscuous sexual behavior, which is responsible for AIDS.
Usually thrilled by the great pomp and spectacle presented by
all things Vatican but contemptuous of its message, the press
seemed bewildered by the hundreds of thousands of young Europeans
who gathered in St. Peter’s Square to honor him. They were
especially stunned when, in dozens of interviews, only a handful of
the faithful there agreed with their desire for a new pope more in
tune with modern mores.
One year later, the papacy of Benedict XVI has resulted in U.S.
bishops fighting back in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and California
against liberal attempts to force Church institutions to provide
the morning-after pill and arrange same-sex adoptions. Meanwhile,
Minnesota is debating a bill that would require food and water for
dying patients, and other states have passed laws severely
restricting abortion on demand.
With two new Supreme Court justices on the bench, these measures
just might stand a chance of chipping away at the culture of death
and restoring to America the idea that every life is precious; from
he who wears the shoes of the fisherman, to an ordinary Florida
woman.
