I really didn’t want to write further on this topic but a diary has been brought to my attention that is so egregious in its manipulation and misrepresentation of the facts as to require a response.
This is what appears in the diary regarding the Vatican’s invitation to Sen. Sanders:
Now Bishop Sorondo has expanded his explanation.
Sánchez Sorondo later toned down his initial comments telling CNN the invitation should not be seen as an endorsement of the senator’s nomination. “It does not signify any support of the campaign," Sánchez Sorondo said. "We want to establish a dialogue between North America and South America so we thought to invite a [U.S.] politician. The president of Bolivia will also be there. Perhaps the others [candidates] would have been interested but they did not request to come."
He also confirmed to CNN that Sanders had reached out to the Vatican first. “He has expressed an interest many times in the Pope's encyclical and it's clear that he has an interest in studying it,” Sánchez Sorondo said. “It might have that effect, but we are not looking to support the campaign."
Now that sounds pretty damning. That is until you look at how CNN actually reported the story:
"It does not signify any support of the campaign," Sorondo explained. "We want to establish a dialogue between North America and South America so we thought to invite a (U.S.) politician. The President of Bolivia will also be there. Perhaps the others (candidates) would have been interested but they did not request to come."
Asked if Sanders had requested an invitation, he said, "He has expressed an interest many times in the Pope's encyclical and it's clear that he has an interest in studying it. It might have that effect, (of looking like they approve of campaign) but we are not looking to support the campaign."
So in order to make it appear that Bishop Sorondo was confirming that Sanders had requested the invitation, the author of the presented passage edited out the fact that when asked directly if Sanders had done so, the Bishop did not confirm that he had.
Now I don’t know whether the diarist was intentionally forwarding this bit of “creative editing” or whether he/she was simply so blinded by partisan bias that they didn’t notice it but if you want an example of how partisan rancor has degraded the level of discourse here, this provides a perfect illustration.