Mark Shea, well, doesn't really speak of the issue. He says he knows nothing about it and doesn't want to comment out of ignorance. He then gives us his take on a conversation he had with someone he says represents prolife individuals. There is no link, so we have to take Mark's word that it went down exactly as he reports. Given how Mark misrepresented what I wrote over the years, that's a tough one.
Mark then goes on to use the conversation to attack prolifers, explain why he rejects prolifers, and went further by insisting that they don't really care about Alfie Evans at all, but merely exploit him as a club to beat up people like Mark. No further comment on the actual Alfie Evans case.
That is an interesting contrast, at least IMHO. If I were actually a person who considers myself prolife, which of these would I fall behind? Or is there another angle worth looking at.
Update: On a second reading, it's unlikely that Mark's appraisal of the conversation can be taken at face value. After all, do we really believe anyone would actually write:
"Reader: But don't you think the doctors are all evil?Perhaps the reader said just that, but I find it difficult to believe. As I said, I've seen how Mark framed my statements in the past, and that tends to make me skeptical at best.
Plus, Mark suddenly leans on the Pope's lack of expertise in a particular area in order to justify not merely following the Pope's lead, as opposed to his usual feelings relative to subjects like the economy. That's an interesting turn of events, and one that suggests inconsistency in applied standards to say the least.