Bishop James Malone of Youngstown was interviewed in the Philadelphia Catholic newspaper around 1986. He was asked whether, in view of the bishops’ support for civil disobedience in South Africa, he supported the pro-life rescue movement. His answer:
“The situations are not comparable. Church teaching allows for civil disobedience when there is an intolerable situation.”
Of course, more than one letter-writer in the next issue of the paper pointed out that Bishop Malone had logically implied that abortion is tolerable.
Bishops like Malone, of course, are completely unprincipled me. He didn’t answer the question based on a moral principle, even though he tried to pretend to be doing so. If he had spoken honestly, as his mind REALLY worked, his answer would have been:
“My leftist advisers tell me that we at the bishops’ conference do not support the pro-life rescue movement. So here’s an attempt to simulate a principled objection to the rescue movement: The situations are not comparable. Church teaching allows for civil disobedience when there is an intolerable situation.”
The great thing about the rescue movement was that it was shown that 1 in 5 women who missed an abortion appointment, whether a preliminary appointment or for the actual abortion itself, went on to have their child. Rescues SAVED lives.
Wow. Thanks for that history and background. Never heard that!