Lindsay Clancy Still Has Human Dignity

Last month, shortly after publishing my prior Catholic365 article about forgiveness and reconciliation, we Catholics, along with fellow believers among other denominations, had an extraordinary opportunity to exhibit true Christian compassion; regrettably, many failed the test.

On Sept. 4, following 38 hours (over seven days) of jury deliberations resulting in a deadlock, a mistrial was declared in the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy (the Massachusetts mother who, it’s alleged, admitted to killing her three children in 2023).

While some Court TV watchers and other armchair observers of the proceedings revealed their true colors via social-media posts throughout the six-week trial, the most elaborate spectacles came during jury deliberations and immediately after a hung jury was declared.

Most striking — indeed, truly bewildering — to me was how un-Christian-like many Christians (including some Catholics) were in professing strident opinions about the defendant.

Do Horrific Crimes Rob Perpetrators of Inherent Human Dignity?

The crimes Lindsay Clancy supposedly acknowledged to committing were, unquestionably, horrific, shocking and tragic to the core. Some manner of accountability for the deaths of her children surely is warranted. But do her sins and alleged culpability completely erase the human dignity Clancy herself possesses?

Or, posing the question more directly to Catholics: Has the notion of God-given human dignity — inherent in every individual — been forgotten by some Catholics who’ve expressed extreme hatred of and condemnation for Clancy (someone they do not know intimately and, thus, hold no personal grievances against), while showing zero compassion for her? What happened to “Love the sinner, hate the sin”?

Moreover, should trial-watchers take cultural cues from conservative social-media “influencers” (such as Matt Walsh, a Catholic) who frequently post purposefully provocative and vitriolic opinions on platforms such as X? (Aside: Have you ever wondered what these so-called “influencers” would do for a living if not for social media? I suspect some might be Uber drivers or shelf-stockers. Nothing against people who toil in those kinds of jobs … but would you be inclined to take advice — other than, for example, on what aisle to find a particular product — from a stockboy?)

Being Pro Life But Hateful Makes You — Not Them — Appear ‘Extremist’

Most readers of this website are, I hope, Pro Life. So, some might wonder how anyone can stand up for Lindsay Clancy.

First, defending the human dignity of another person obviously doesn’t mean dismissing evil acts they’ve committed; in the same vein, however, being Pro Life doesn’t mean one has to hate a person who has killed. It’s on the latter point that some Pro-Lifers might get it wrong: Their laudable steadfastness against abortion might cloud their thinking into believing that anyone who kills children (especially their own) deserves no pity, no compassion, no forgiveness (regardless of any extenuating circumstances potentially involved in the crimes).

I’m not expert enough to credibly address the potential validity of postpartum psychosis as a murder defense (although, by many accounts, postpartum depression is real and not uncommon). I also cannot speak with firsthand knowledge about the roles psychiatric care and prescription-drug use might have played as factors affecting Clancy’s mental state prior to and during the murders of her children. But neither are most of the conservative, Pro-Life social-media “influencers” — who spew nothing but hatred for Clancy — experts on these complex matters.

As it concerns prescription drugs (Clancy reportedly was prescribed up to 13 psychiatric medications): Merely hearing or reading the litany of harmful potential side effects included in any Big-Pharma drug advertisement should be enough to give one pause regarding the possible impact of prescription drugs in the Clancy case. Plus, I would remind conservative Pro-Lifers (of which I’m one): The same industry I’m criticizing here also is responsible for the drugs (mifepristone and misoprostol) that annually end an estimated 700,000 pregnancies in the United States alone; and COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, which, as history might reveal, likely harmed more people than they helped. So, why do some “influencers” have so little to say about the culpability of Big Pharma in the Clancy case? (Draw your own conclusions.)

These are not “apples to oranges” comparisons. I believe it’s not unreasonable to raise questions about the role of the for-profit pharmaceutical industry (that annually kills nearly three-quarters of a million unborn babies) in the deaths of the three Clancy children. Further, I cannot fathom why more wrath hasn’t been directed by conservative Clancy-haters toward one of the probable main culprits in this case. Indeed, I think the Pro-Life cause is done a great disservice by “influencers” who appear so uncompromisingly uncompassionate — making them appear the radicals.

What About the Victims?

Patrick and Lindsay Clancy had three children: Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, 8 months (it’s important their names, as innocent victims, are included in this article).

We, as Catholics, believe in mortal sin, forgiveness and reconciliation … and in purgatory, heaven and hell (by the way, thank God for purgatory — because if limited to the other two options only, most souls probably wouldn’t escape perdition).

Aside from stating that unbaptized children killed by abortion are “entrust[ed] … to the mercy of God” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶ 1261), Catholic teaching is otherwise not definitive on the fate of murdered children (born or unborn). Some Christians might interpret it, however, to mean that through God’s mercy, time in purgatory is brief for small children incapable of mortal sin (or, since we don’t know how long purification takes, at least possibly shorter than for adults following a lifetime of sin).

If that’s the case (again, we cannot know for sure), would you think Cora, Dawson and Callan — each a baptized Catholic and possibly “fast-tracked” to heaven — would be screaming from above for vengeance and justice? Or, do you believe they’d be asking for kindness and forgiveness for their mother? (You already know the answer.) Thus, consider that we might best honor the victims by showing compassion toward the one who, as the trial revealed, by all accounts was a loving mother prior to Jan. 24, 2023.

Light Amid Darkness: Human Dignity Matters

You might’ve noticed that forgiveness was a prominent theme in many Mass readings during these past few weeks in Ordinary Time. While readers here can choose to dismiss all that I’ve written above about possible extenuating circumstances in the Lindsay Clancy murders, we cannot credibly call ourselves faithfully abiding Catholics and Christians without extending a modicum (or more) of compassion toward Clancy. To not do so — failing to recognize and acknowledge her inherent human dignity — would be contrary to the teachings of the faith (even for conservative, Pro-Life Catholics distressed by the tragedy).

Interestingly, Pro-Lifers commonly show compassion for women who’ve had abortions — recognizing that some were pressured by partners or family into ending pregnancies; and many (coerced or not) suffer longtime (possibly lifetime) emotional (regret, shame, sadness, depression) and physical (increased risk of infertility and breast cancer) aftereffects. So, why is Clancy — who might for the remainder of her life experience physical and emotional side effects on an even grander scale — not afforded similar compassion by the same group?

Clancy did have many supporters demonstrating outside the courthouse and posting on social media. Some have been depicted as “extremists” (rightly so, in certain cases, if they were driven exclusively by radical-feminist views); others rallied for her out of genuine concern over failures in the healthcare system. But few I’m aware of were motivated primarily by mercy and respect for her human dignity.

In a press statement after the mistrial, Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz said, “This has been about justice for those babies” — positing that he spoke “for the victims who are no longer here.” But did he really speak for them? As suggested above, I rather doubt it.

Cruz went on to praise the prosecution team (which had just expended an estimated $1 million to $3 million in taxpayer money on a trial that ended with no verdict). Meantime, while even Patrick Clancy extended forgiveness to his now ex-wife, Cruz displayed not an iota of compassion for the defendant (nor, apparently, any confidence in God’s providence).

Such vitriol and vengeance exhibited by people such as Cruz, Matt Walsh and others mark a radical, dark view (lumping them, ironically, alongside other extremists); conversely, compassion and forgiveness are signs of a brighter, more positive (if somewhat countercultural) Christian outlook represented, among other places in the Bible, in the parable about tax collectors’ and prostitutes’ ability to repent and enter the kingdom of God — before pious hypocrites are able to (Matthew 21:28–32 — which so happened to be this past Sunday’s Gospel reading).

Rightly horrified by the murders of three children, we cannot know Lindsay Clancy’s heart or how God is using her and the alleged deeds she committed. We can, however, in acknowledging her human dignity, extend compassion toward her, while remaining certain of one thing: “He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness” (1 Corinthians 4:5).