GABRIEL'S CLARION (apr6gab.htm)
April 6, 2005
vol 16, no. 96
Evolving Standards of Perdition

    How can there be "decency and maturity" when those determining such on the law books are void of those attributes?

      "If it is truly unconstitutional to take the life of someone who kills because of diminished responsibility, how can it then be constitutional to take the life of someone who has not killed and has no responsibility for any wrong? How is murdering the innocent and voiceless evolving toward greater maturity and decency?"

    Am I the only one who saw the cruel twist of irony with Theresa Schindler-Schiavo's execution just weeks after the United States Supreme Court justified its 5-4 decision to declare death sentences to convicted juvenile killers unconstitutional? The High Court cited an "evolving standard of decency that marks a maturing society" - something they borrowed liberally from the liberal judiciary circles in Europe and the UN. Given this perception of a "maturing" society, we must ask how murdering helpless adults like Terri, 4,000 helpless, but nearly fully-formed unborn infants in the third-trimester, and millions more in earlier stages of the womb can be seen as "maturing" or evolving any standard of decency!

Basis for Supreme Court Decision

    It is clear that the Supreme Court decision stems from the popular legal notion that minors are incapable of forming a rational, informed moral decision about almost anything. It is for this reason that minors who enter many kinds of contracts can often disaffirm those contracts even within a short time of becoming of age. The reasoning is that we cannot hold such young people responsible for their acts to the same degree that we do adults since they are relatively uninformed and unaware of the entire moral implications of their actions. Adults are to blame for this, but the court doesn't want to point fingers lest they realize it points right back at them.

    With a broad brush, the court's thinking pretends that the child who reaches a certain age suddenly develops a full sense of moral thought and responsibility for his actions. Conversely, this thinking also pretends that adults always have a clue about what they are doing or the implications of their actions. At the very root of this thinking is the idea that it is wrong to punish, to take the life, of anyone who is relatively unaware of what they are doing. Therefore, the minor is not unlike an insane person in that if either kills someone, the law often decides that the minor or insane person cannot fully be held responsible for his actions and therefore taking his life for those actions in inherently wrong.

    In sum, we have someone who has killed, who has taken a life, but we still insist that said person should not be held fully responsible for their actions and therefore it is inherently wrong to take their life. Whether one agrees fully with the law's handling of minors and insane individuals, the basis for this handling becomes a powerful weapon against the present law's treatment of the unborn and people like Terri Schiavo.

Abortion and Schiavo

    There is no need here to rehash the manner in which federal law has twisted and turned itself in its attempts to justify the murder of the unborn and of people like Terri Schiavo. Ignoring the views of the majority of Americans as illustrated by poll after poll and the most recent elections, the federal judiciary has trampled human life and seen no problem with taking the lives of innocent, helpless, voiceless victims on the basis of relatively superficial and propped-up notions of privacy and rights. Ignoring the efforts of the Florida state court, Congress, and even President Bush, the Florida judge George Greer, who had been the sole and prejudiced arbiter for at least five years, pushed through the execution of an innocent, voiceless, defenseless woman based on the weak assertions of a husband with a documented history of abusing her. This history was and continues to be ignored by that same court and higher courts bent on protecting their own kind, as well as the liberal media - all despite the fact that it clearly demands a full investigation and sheds doubt on the integrity, honesty, and arguments of the husband.

    Rather than move slowly in respect of a human life, this court ran toward ending that life as quickly as possible, ignoring any evidence demanding pause and contemplation. It was just revealed in Newsmax that there were 89 abuse charges against Terri's estranged husband Michael Schiavo reported to Florida's Department of Children and Families. A lot of good that does Terri now.

    Likewise with the evidence against abortion. Despite research on the many harms of abortion to women and the unsafe conditions of many abortion mills, legislators like false Catholic Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and the federal judiciary seem more intent on continuing to kill the unborn than trying to save the living women making such a fateful step. In a sense, the abortion situation is a double murder in some cases as the unborn are murdered and their mother exposed to greater health risks - not to mention the death fo the soul through grievous sin - all in the name of fast bucks and pro-death votes.

Just More Legal Rubbish

    In the end, the only thing we learn from the Supreme Court's words in defending its decision to void death sentences of juvenile killers while failing to prevent the murder of the unborn and people like Terri Schiavo is that much, if not most; legal justification is nothing more than verbal rubbish applied selectively. It all sounds so noble and well-thought, but in the end these words are mere compost added to the soil of sin to justify the planting of evil and perdition.

    If this society really is so "maturing" and has any "evolving sense of decency" it would have outlawed abortion long ago and Terri Schiavo would be alive today. In fact, the only thing viler than pretending to be maturing or evolving decency is to claim that one is maturing and evolving that decency while killing the unborn and allowing people like Terri to die. Such a despicable claim actually infers or pretends that it is the height of maturity and decency to murder the innocent while defending the guilty based on age under the notion that age limits responsibility.

    If it is truly unconstitutional to take the life of someone who kills because of diminished responsibility, how can it then be constitutional to take the life of someone who has not killed and has no responsibility for any wrong? How is murdering the innocent and voiceless evolving toward greater maturity and decency?


    A comparison of the federal judiciary's defense of juvenile killers versus its lack of defense of the unborn and people like Terri Schiavo is yet another despicable example of why this society's legal integrity is a joke. Only a handful of this society's judges, legislators, and government leaders deserve the term "honorable" in front of their name. If evil and sin thrive in deceit, distortion, and hypocrisy, then it is not difficult to see that such evil and sin have a permanent address in the halls of this society's judiciary, legislative, and governmental bodies!

Gabriel Garnica

    Editor's Note: Heaven is once again under attack by those who would seek to ignore and overthrow God's majesty and authority. Gabriel Garnica, educator and attorney, submits regular insights and commentaries to remind and help guide readers toward a deeper and more assertive faith. Touching on topics and issues ranging from personal faith, doctrine, education, scripture, the media, family life, morality, and values, Gabriel's notes are music to traditional ears but unpleasant tones to those who have bought into the misguided notions so prevalent and spreading in today's Catholic world.

    Gabriel's Clarion
    April 6, 2005
    Volume 16, no. 96