Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? I'll tell you all who's gone mad.  It's at least half of CI forum members. Imagine such a topic of doubtful worth, i.e. worthless, commanding this kind of attention!  You keyboard warriors are moving the number of views closer to 3000 with each passing minute.

It got as much attention as it did because several posters defended the vulgarity in this sermon.  So it turned into a heated debate.  In addition, other topics were raised that were of interest, such as whether priests are beyond criticism for this kind of thing and whether or not crude/vulgar language and images are appropriate among devout Catholics.  So the interest and attention is quite understandable.

Absolutely correct Ladislaus,  this thread is about whether or not people thought the content of the sermon was appropriate, and a lot of people thought it was not, and said so.

Nadir,
Look, your post was wonderful and the above saints were absolutely lovers of purity.  No one should disagree with that.  But it doesn't answer my question - maybe I'm not explaining it correctly?

You imply that these 2 young women were pure because they were ignorant of concupiscence.  That makes no sense and devalues their purity.  Is a 2 year old "pure" because they are innocent?  No, they are just innocent.  A 2 year old cannot be pure, because the virtue of purity necessisarily requires one to be exposed to, or have temptations against vice.  One cannot have heroic virtue without overcoming the temptations which seek to conquer the virtue.

Jacinta was very pure, but she died at 10, so doesn't really fit my example, as she's not an adolescent.  St Maria Goretti certainly had knowledge of what her assailant was doing because she kept yelling to him that "God is not pleased; this is not what God wants."  This is when he went into a rage and started stabbing her.

I guess my questions are:
1.  Why is a realistic, mature, catholic introduction to marriage and reproduction considered by some to be "impure"?  This is a very puritantical and uncatholic outlook on marriage.
2.  Why is it assumed that to keep a child "pure" means you keep them ignorant?  This is not logical.
3.  Why is it assumed that knowledge will lead to impurity?

Exactly. Not only that, but ignorance at late ages makes it hard for such sheltered individuals to respond to them, and therefore don't know how to react and (most importantly) resist such temptations once they are finally exposed to them. That's why it is important to denounce such sins(by exposing them first, of course) in order to ensure the sheep know which lines not to cross in order to stay on the straight-and-narrow.

Exactly.

Another Pfeiffer cult member and lackey?

The sermon was too explicit - the words too explicit. I only got to the first part.  The spiritual books say that purity and humility are two subjects that are delicate - to say too much or say the wrong thing is to wilt them, like a delicate flower.  And yes, St. Paul says some things shouldn't even be mentioned.  A word/phrase alluding to what the priest has in mind (and he'd better be right about the need of it) can be acceptable and effective -- but you don't wade whole hog into the subject with crass vocabulary that makes those trapped in the pew not just uncomfortable but perhaps vulnerable to impure thoughts or temptations, especially if it carries on and on. 

We don't have sex ed classes for, among other things, reasons exactly along these lines.  If one is modest, one is most careful about anything approaching the subject of purity - much less spewing broadside, rough words or expressions that one would not say if Our Lady was sitting there listening.  But some of us go where angels would fear to tread.  His approach/method, was out of place.  

Just listen to the sermon.  I'm not going to go to the trouble of transcribing every single instance where he used the term.  Anyone with proper sensibilities and sense of decorum can recognize the crudeness and vulgarity.

I did listen to the sermon, and(if you were paying attention), I said that I don't think he should have explicitly mentioned "masturbation" or "prostitutes" in it.
 However, though these words may be inappropriate to use in front of children, that doesn't mean they were necessarily used in a crude manner. I don't see how mentioning them in order to denounce them for the good of the faithful counts as "crass talking". 
Maybe for "delicate flowers" as some of you admire, but not for mature adults. 

I did listen to the sermon, and(if you were paying attention), I said that I don't think he should have explicitly mentioned "masturbation" or "prostitutes" in it.
 However, though these words may be inappropriate to use in front of children, that doesn't mean they were necessarily used in a crude manner. I don't see how mentioning them in order to denounce them for the good of the faithful counts as "crass talking".
Maybe for "delicate flowers" as some of you admire, but not for mature adults.

NP, it is more that these words are not appropriate to use at all, certainly inappropriate in Church.

NP, it is more that these words are not appropriate to use at all, certainly inappropriate in Church.

You honestly think that it would be inappropriate for adults to use these words when talking amongst themselves in a conversation that's not am inherently impure one?