A Priest, not a particular Priest, This Particular Priest delivered this Sermon in open company, I would say the same regardless of which of any Priest who did the same...

I tried to correlate what Fr was saying but could make no logic of it.  How he even made the connections he did?  Cause of road rage...suppressed or nonnsurpressed self stimulation?  Anger due to coffee of the wrong temperature due to sɛҳuąƖ tension?  Man seeking an adrenaline rush from strenuous exercise is also due to lust?? (Now I know he can’t relate to the endorphins released from vigorous excercise).  

While he does say a few things that make sense, the rest is just a warped rant of thoughts that are illogical and unnecessarily vulgar and offensive.

...also, bus loads of male and female prostitutes arriving at the Vatican everyday at 4am?? REALLY??  That seems like a stretch, even for Modernist Rome!  I’m sure if that were true the poperatzzi [paparazzi] and National Inquirer would have been all over that years ago.  

If I remember correctly, false witness is still a sin.  If your going to say things like that you better have irrefutable proof!

.
He did say bus loads, but he didn't say what the bus size was. The word bus might be an exaggeration, and "van" could have been more accurate. Maybe "mini van" or SUV or even station wagon (obsolete term).

stg: With Respect,  are not talking about the Priest, but about the Sermon...

Don't kid yourself.  You and (we) are talking about the priest.  The sermon could have been critiqued without specific reference to the priest.  But that was hardly, I suspect, the primary intentioon of the topic's initiator.  In fact, it would have been difficult to fully appreciate the sermon's contents without reference to this particular priest.  It all comes together only when we understand who it was that delivered it. 
As PV asks: "Did the sermon deliver itself?"  To talk about the sermon apart from its author would have made for a very short-lived topic.  But because it was this turkey who gave it, the topic will have a longer shelf life.
I'm waiting for another sermon in which this priest might explore the 8th Commandment.  That would be a good one, though it might not make the CI hit parade list.

I know, I get it.  It was definitely a brazen sermon, I just wonder whether it isn't necessary to wake people up and get them out of their snoozing.  

Remember: The end doesn't justify the means, happenby.

Exactly.
From the pulpit and the way he is talking about it, it is as inappropriate for children as it is inappropriate for adults.

For ...adults?
Are you ______ kidding me?!?!  

Sure the subject matter would be good for everyone to hear, but it crossed a line...and to top it all off, he made stuff up all through out it with road rage, coffee, bus loads of prostitutes, and generals encouraging sex to make the soldiers more vicious....We all heard the impurity sermons before, and I'm sure they had them generations ago.  I don't buy into the comments about how its so needed in this day and age, there is a reason why whoring is called the world's oldest profession...people have always been people.  I expect to hear talks like this in a retreat, not from the pulpit. I think it goes further than prudence, and over elaborating.  I feel that he intentionally went in that much detail to deliberately push the envelope.

First of all, he didn't make that stuff up(except maybe about the busloads of prostitutes-idk). If you think most of that isn't true, you're incredibly naive.
 Secondly, whoring may be the word's oldest profession, but how old is pornography, huh? The point is, impurity is so much more accessable now than it ever was, and it's almost literally impossible to go into a public place and not be exposed to multiple gravely immodest/pornographic images. And you can honestly say that you simply "dont buy into the comments about how its so needed in this day and age"? Surely in this day and age, priests have almost an obligation to speak out against these sins for the good of souls.