The trial of Lindsay Clancy is over, and the case speaks volumes about what is wrong in America today. We have not only lost our moral bearings but also are debating the very need for a compass to guide our actions.
What happened in this case was very clear. Mrs. Clancy suffered from post-partum depression and was receiving intense treatment that seemed to be progressing. From all outside appearances, the family life could be considered normal. This picture would be shattered in the course of a single afternoon.
No one contests the fact that this mother methodically strangled her three children and then jumped out the window of her home. She had sent her husband on an errand that provided the window of opportunity to carry out this evil deed. The prosecution argued that Lindsay Clancy “with malice aforethought” killed her children. The defense said that she was legally insane.
The issue is not about the indisputable facts. What is important here is how the case is being framed to extend the limits of what is allowable in our society. Activists and the media are using this case to advance their agendas.
Creating a Victim
What causes the most shock is how many Americans, especially women, are reacting favorably to the crime. Many are justifying the killings, shifting the blame or framing a narrative that makes Lindsay appear a victim of oppression, not a perpetrator of evil deeds.
In a recent piece in Crisis, ethicist Anne Hendershott tries to explain the reasoning of the three hundred women in pink who protested daily in front of the courthouse. “[S]ocial media has made Clancy into a martyr who is being persecuted by a cruel justice system. Across TikTok, thousands of women around the world are posting videos in which they claim that they, too, could have killed their own children…. The ‘women in pink’ cohort includes people who have chosen to turn the trial into a participatory spectacle. Their concern emerged because they have become convinced that mothers are judged unfairly.”
The sensational murder trial has been transformed into a woke narrative. These activists in pink, supported by the media, blame “the system” for making Mrs. Clancy’s life unbearable and demand that it be changed.
The Missing Element
A key to understanding the case was signaled by some passing references by the prosecutor. The questions set off alarms that indicated an effort to avoid mentioning a certain subject at all costs.
The subject was sin. In referring to Mrs. Clancy’s Catholic background, there were two brief mentions of “mortal sin.” Both mentions were immediately stifled. The second occasion inspired the defense counsel to feign outrage while he asked for a mistrial. The message was clear—sin and morality were irrelevant and never to be raised.
Original Sin and Suffering
The reference to sin gives some insight into the logic of a liberal world gone mad. In this case, it was the notion of Original Sin that was contested in court.
Original Sin explains why we experience suffering, death and a universal tendency toward evil. The life of a Christian consists of embracing the Cross of Christ and, with the help of God’s grace, overcoming these trials that are part of our human condition.
The liberal mentality denies the notion of Original Sin. Instead, it exalts the individual above all else and demands that each must be free to create one’s own reality. Thus, the purpose of life is the individual’s pleasure and good fortune. Everything must be done to erase the appearance of sin and suffering. Like a Hollywood movie, the natural course of a person’s life should be a happy ending.
Suffering Cannot Be Avoided
Of course, life never turns out this way. Suffering inevitably enters our lives and ends with death. While most try to hide the pain for as long as possible, there is no escaping from this scenario that is part of our fallen human condition.
However, the liberal narrative must explain why things go wrong. It does this by seeing all suffering as a fruit of injustice. It holds that a person should never experience pain, anguish or discipline. Everyone must be allowed to avoid suffering, regardless of the cost. Anyone can be blamed.
This is what protesters are doing in the Clancy case.
Part of a Process
The road to what happened in the Clancy case is the result of a process that created a mentality over generations. In the early phases of this liberal narrative, the only limitation upon a man who wanted to avoid suffering was that his acts must not hurt another.
In the present days of our radical individualism, these limitations are no longer in place. Not even a helpless unborn child can stand between a person and self-gratification. Abortion, drugs and transgenderism are all permissive under these circumstances—even though they cause pain to those loved ones around them. The individual’s desire is supreme.
Blaming Everyone and Allowing Everything
The case of Mrs. Clancy takes this process yet further. No one doubts that she suffered from her condition. However, the protesters used the occasion to blame anyone and anything that could be blamed for the suffering—modern motherhood, a cruel judicial process, the doctors, the children, the husband or “the system” in general.
This case was not an individual indictment for a crime but a condemnation of anyone who would allow suffering. The culprit is Original Sin and ultimately He Who was offended by humanity’s first sin.
No longer limited to acting without hurting anyone, victims can now blame and hurt everyone, including their own families. The Clancy case is being used to pursue the idea that even older children can be immolated on this terrible altar of nihilism.