A (Suspected) Serial Flasher's Plea: "Please let me go, I have a wife and kids."

Detail from The Last Judgment by Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni (March 6, 1475 – February 18, 1564)

Here's the link: Man suspected of serial flashing asked pursuer to let him go – A Tustin man chased a 45-year-old man suspected of being a serial flasher until police arrived.

Here's a quote:

Naked and looking for a way out, the man spotted outside a woman's window asked his pursuer to let him go free.

"He said, 'Please let me go, I have a wife and kids,' " said Michael Palacio, who on Feb. 2 chased the naked man after he said he spotted him outside the window of a woman's apartment, knocking on the glass. "I thought, 'If you are married, then why are you doing this?' "

Palacio, 39, chased the man for about 10 minutes, buying time for police, who arrived and arrested the Mission Viejo man in the parking lot of a Tustin grocery.

Authorities suspect that since July 2005, Christopher Holden Fenn, an insurance underwriter and a father of four, is the man who exposed himself to 91 people in Aliso Viejo, Dana Point, Irvine, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo, Tustin and Rancho Santa Margarita.

For months, authorities distributed sketches and requested information on a man who targeted women near trails and apartment complexes. The man covered his face with a towel or shirt, and investigators dubbed him "the O.C. flasher."

Standing before a judge Monday morning in a suit and tie, Fenn entered a plea of not guilty to 19 charges of exposing himself. He is also charged with aggravated assault, accused of having thrown a brick at Palacio during the chase.

Fenn, 45, has faced similar charges before. He was convicted of indecent exposure in 1981.
Palacio's shocked girlfriend was the first to spot Fenn the morning of the chase, when she saw him through the rearview mirror of their car. Palacio gave chase, stopping several times to catch his breath. At last, he got hold of the leg of the alleged flasher, who by then had slipped on a pair of shorts.

Palacio, a Tustin resident, remembers asking, "If you're married, why are you doing this?"

It's the shock that pushes many exhibitionists to expose themselves, and to repeat the action over and over again, said Gil Geis, professor emeritus of criminology at UCI.
"The reason it's done is to get a reaction," Geis said.

My thoughts:

Is it common for guilty people to use innocent people as human shields in an effort to manipulate those who've discovered their actions and mitigate the consequences of their actions? The string of politicians caught in sexual scandals from Eliot Spitzer and David Vitter to Larry Craig and Jim McGreevey, who all insisted on having their wives stand beside them when they faced the media and pubic scrutiny, would seem to indicate that it is.

Having a wife and children only means these men have not only freely consented to the commission of criminal acts, but they are also guilty of betraying their wives and children, opening up their families to the potential for public scrutiny, and placing the security of their families at risk. They also opened themselves up to the possibility of blackmail, creating a situation where those who are private citizens jeopardize the security of their families and those who hold public positions have compromised the public trust and jeopardized the security of those they have been elected to represent.

Having a spouse and children is a circumstance that makes one more culpable, not less – in fact, such a circumstance increases the number of sins one commits in such instances, because one sins against each member of one's family (and possibly against one's friends and associates, as well) in such circumstances, as opposed to someone without friends or relatives and/or not in public life and who is single and whose downfall will not bring ruin to anyone more than one's self - which is probably a rare circumstance.

So why do they remind people of their families when they're caught, if not to use innocent people, victimized by their own reckless quest to gratify the demands of disordered passions they have refused to discipline which have blossomed into aberrant drives and appetites as a result?

When we consent to sin, even in secret, and even if we plan to repent, we have listened to and wanted to believe the same lie the serpent told Eve in the garden:

But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die..." (Genesis 3:4)

Then we, like Eve, consider the object of our desire:

"...the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired..." (Genesis 3:6)

The consideration, which is merely a temptation, a conflict between desire and duty, is not sinful if we have not desired the temptation or placed ourselves in the occasion of sin, circumstances which we know will induce temptation, is a step towards consent.

When we sin, we consent, as Eve did. We know that our desire is evil, because we wish to abuse God's gifts and use our free will to attain a perceived good in a way which is incapable of being ordered toward God, but something in the depths of our heart is drawn to the perceived good and desires the momentary happiness the attainment of that good promises, and our hearts, filled with longing and drunk with self-love, utter with a silent sigh, "Yes.":

"...she took of its fruit and ate..." (Genesis 3:6)

St. James reminds us:

Blessed is the man who endures trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life which God has promised to those who love him. Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one; but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death. (James 1:12-15)

You will, most certainly die, spiritually - even if your sin is known to no other human being in the living world. You cannot escape the eyes of God, and you will answer for your choice at your Particular Judgment, unless you turn back to God and repent.

It would be of benefit to reflect on the Particular Judgment by reading this link: Particular Judgment

We are weak, due to concupiscence, which is one of the consequences of Original Sin. This means that our passions, which are part of our lower nature and which are good when used properly, easily incline themselves to what is perceived as pleasurable and a potential source of happiness, and have an aversion to anything painful or difficult, resulting in the exaggeration of the benefits of a perceived good to the point that right reason (a properly formed conscience grounded in at least the natural law - which is common to all mankind, and for Catholics, enlightened by the sure and certain guide of infallible Church teaching on matters of faith and morals) struggles (if one is armed with the shield of faith and the armor of virtue) against being clouded and overwhelmed by the pull of the passions.

St. Paul speaks of concupiscence in his Letter to the Romans:

I find then a law, that when I have a will to do good, evil is present with me. For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man: but I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members. Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (Romans 7:21-25)

Fighting the Good Fight: Resisting Temptation:

We have three spiritual foes: 1.) the flesh; 2.) the world; 3.) the Devil. The flesh is often called “concupiscence,” which is the inclination to sin deep within us. The world and the Devil are external to us, but also very powerful threats to our true and lasting happiness. Here let us say a word about each, with a nod to Father Tanquerey for his assistance.

1.) We base our description of the flesh on the famous passage of Saint John the Apostle and Evangelist (+ circa 100 A.D.) in his First Letter (2:16): “For all that is in the world, the concupiscence of the flesh and the concupiscence of the eyes and the pride of life, is not from the Father but is from the world.” Therefore, the spiritual foe we term the flesh may be further divided into: A.) the concupiscence of the flesh, which is the inordinate love of sensual pleasures; B.) the concupiscence of the eyes, which is all unwholesome curiosity and inordinate love of the goods of our earth; C.) the pride of life, which is excessive self-love and is accompanied by vanity.

2.) The world signifies “not the total aggregate of men upon the earth, among whom are found both choice souls and irreligious men; but the sum-total of those who oppose Jesus Christ and are the slaves of the threefold concupiscence.” Identified as such are unbelievers, the indifferent, hardened sinners and those who believe and even practice their religion but do so mired in a moral laxity.

3.) The Devil is representative of Satan and the Fallen Angels. The Devil was jealous of the contentment experienced by Adam and Eve and so tempted them to sin. Ever since he was successful in the Garden of Eden, the Devil has continued his efforts against men and women, boys and girls with the hideous goal of leading all human persons away from their beloved and loving Creator.

Prayer and frequent reception of the sacraments, combined with self-denial, mortification, discipline, and the practice of virtue, which are dreaded by the world, the flesh, and the devil, are the best means by which to avoid sin and vice and continue to gain eternal merit through acts of virtue.

Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace; besides all these, taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. (Ephesians 6:11-17)

When those who choose to indulge in vice plead for people to look the other way or give them a lighter sentence, pointing to innocent people who will suffer because they've been caught, but isn't it interesting how those people didn't concern them before being caught? It seems to me that their manipulative plea is: Don't punish me, because it will make the innocent people in my life suffer – but all they really care about is what is going to end up happening to them. They thought nothing of the innocent people in their life while indulging their attachment to vice in ways that injured those innocent people in and through the act of indulging in those vices, which suggests that the only reason for their shame for having been exposed and the only reason for their sorrow is an aversion to experiencing the consequences of their choices.

The fantasy that what others don't know won't hurt them is a lie. We are all connected. All sins, even our secret sins, darken our intellects and weaken our wills, lowering our ability to resist temptation and thereby falling into other sins and increasing our likelihood of mistreating those around us, spreading the poison we have freely imbibed by provoking sin in those around us because of how we have treated them. All sins, even secret sins, injure the Mystical Body of Christ – thereby injuring our neighbors as well as ourselves, causing scandal, and contributing to structures of sin within society.

"If the present situation can be attributed to difficulties of various kinds, it is not out of place to speak of "structures of sin," which. . . are rooted in personal sin and thus always linked to the concrete acts of individuals who introduce these structures, consolidate them, and make them difficult to remove. And thus they grow stronger, spread, and become the source of other sins, and so influence people's behavior. "Sin" and "structures of sin" are categories which are seldom applied to the situation of the contemporary world. However, one cannot easily gain a profound understanding of the reality that confronts us unless we give a name to the root of the evils which afflict us." (Pope John Paul II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 36).

It's also a lie to fantasize that our secret sins will never be revealed. At the end of the world, the secrets of hearts will be made known to all at the General Judgment. Our sins and acts of virtue, as well as the ripple effects our sins and acts of virtue created in the course of human history, will be made known to every intelligent creature made by the hand of God, including all who have preceded us in death throughout human history.

It would be of benefit to consider the General Judgment by reading the reflection linked here: The Last Judgment

In all things, consider your final end, and choose eternal life!

Any thoughts?

Comments

[Rita]

Magnificent food for thought on Holy Wednesday. Thank you Thomistic.

[Steve]

Hello, I tried emailing this to you, but a lot of times it gets caught in spam filters so I hope you don't mind I post a question to you here. Thank you...

Greetings,

My name is Steve. I have been reading your blog for about a year to help me with doubts about my faith. My faith has become considerably stronger, but every now and then something shakes me. Now is one of those times, and I am wondering if you might help me understand something.

I just read that the Vatican is going to send a statement to the Jews that says that the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of Jews does not constitute a call for their conversion(http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/03/vatican-to-issue-conciliatory-note-by-card-bertone-to-jews-over-good-friday-prayer/).

I admittedly don't understand a lot of what I'm trying to learn, but it seems like a big deal. If the Pope has changed his position on this, would it undermine his infallibility? It seems like it to me, though I understand very little. As my faith has grown, I have developed a love for the Holy Father, the Church, and orthodoxy. From the things I've read, other traditionalists are extremely upset by this. I can't help be to question my faith in the Church a bit.

I'm sorry to ramble on and on, but any advice you have that might help would really help me go into the Triduum with my heart in the right place.

THank you,
STeve

[Joseph-USA]

Thomistic -

Was my comment removed inadvertently or by your spam filter (as the commenter above, Steve, indicated had happened to him)? Or did you find something "wrong" with my comment-advice to Steve, that he go and find and speak about his questions to a traditional ordained Roman Catholic priest (one who celebrates the Tridentine Latin Mass)?

I ask you this because I did not receive your response (or deletion of) to my comment-criticism concerning the fellow named Jacob who posted the day before yesterday a solicitation of meetings with other homosexuals, providing his web site and the general location of the proposed meeting place, under your topic heading about the "Gay 'Catholic Couple' raising 2 kids, Prides Itself as Being Devout."

Please respond to this post and that previous posted question.

[Thomistic]

Joseph,

"Gay 'Catholic Couple' raising 2 kids, Prides Itself as Being Devout" was not my post. It was done before I began posting here. I am not e-mailed when people comment on other posts, so I wasn't aware of your comment there or the other one you mentioned. I don't generally read the comments posted in other people's posts. Truth be told, I don't often read the posts either.

Although I have access to edit any comment, I don't often do so, especially if they aren't in my posts, mainly because I don't notice them as often, since I am not alerted of the existence of such comments via e-mail, as I am with comments in my own posts.

What you described sounds unacceptable and I will delete it in a bit if it's what you've described. I don't know what you asked there, because I haven't yet seen your question, for the same reason I haven't seen the comment.

I can guess your comment was probably some sort of how come this gets to stay up, but my comments don't. Hopefully, this response will help clarify that without me needing to answer your question there (if that's what you were asking).

I erased your comment in this post because bashing Pope Benedict XVI and blaming him for all the problems in the Church is not acceptable. I've tried banning you in the past, but you keep coming back, so I've sort of come to accept that sometimes you are going to post things I have to delete and other times I can leave your comments up because they aren't as inappropriate, even if I don't like their tone.

Comments bashing Pope Benedict XVI, John Paul II, or any pope, or which accuse any priest, bishop, pope, religious or lay person of being a homosexual without providing concrete evidence, or which could be considered libelous or slanderous will always be deleted as soon as I see them. I don't want people to read those comments and think I think I endorse such views or support other people voicing such opinions. This isn't the forum for such things. You've tried to do so here many, many times, and I keep deleting them and you keep trying and occasionally start howling when one of your inappropriate comments gets deleted. Apparently, you seem to think you can keep doing the same thing and get a different result. That sounds like a recipe for frustration to me, but you seem determined to waste your time and mine in that regard. If bashing Pope Benedict XVI makes you feel better, there are plenty of places you can go to do so, but this isn't one of them.

Pax,

Thomistic

[Thomistic]

Steve,

I wouldn't worry about the Pope going against Church teaching. He won't.

The story quoted by Fr. Z that you linked is a news report from a liberal secular source (Reuters) which has inaccuracies about Catholicism (and those were pointed out by Father Z in the post you linked).

The media often distorts, misrepresents (intentionally or not) and/or misinterprets statements coming from the Holy See. The media often spins statements coming from the Holy See in controversial ways to grab interest. Another common tactic is to claim some controversial statement of private opinion coming from a cardinal or some Vatican bureaucrat is the position of the Holy See, when it is not. Sometimes the Vatican clarifies such things. At other times, the Holy See ignores them. The story quoted by Fr. Z that you linked speculates about the contents of a letter that has not yet been published. Let's wait to see what it actually says, who is saying it, and whether or not the statement is endorsed by the Holy Father before worrying too much about it.

The media's predictions about the Holy See are frequently wrong, at least in part, if not entirely. The same can be said for their interpretations of the meaning behind the words used by the Holy Father or found in Vatican documents.

Many secular reporters, especially liberal ones, know little or nothing of Catholic teaching and don't make much of an effort to understand it better so as to be better at reporting on it.

Again, let's wait and see.

Pax,

Thomistic

[Joseph-USA]

Thomistic -

Thanks for your response. I did not realize that you were merely one of many people who posted these various articles on this blog. I thought this was entirely your own enterprise (obviously I also know almost zero about the entire "blog" universe).

Also obviously, I thought that my comments drawing logical connections between, the Vatican Council II and the major participants at that Council and the post Vatican II popes, and the many areas of tremendous deterioration in the Catholic Church, were rational and worthy of debate-consideration.

I can now understand that your position as an individual member of a group-blog operation (rather than as a sole proprietor of the blog) makes it difficult or undesirable for you to be associated with comments such as mine, with which you disagree.

We have a different approach in dealing with Church issues, and evidently there are many many more Catholics and "Catholics" who follow your inclination. I think we need a much more aggressive, direct and confrontational approach to these problems.

I will depart with good wishes for your continued success.