Author Topic: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.  (Read 5446 times)

1 Member and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Nooseph Polten

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 155
  • Reputation: +63/-50
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
« Reply #120 on: December 06, 2017, 11:13:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?
    +Truth and Justice for all+
                  JMJ

    Offline Meg

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1482
    • Reputation: +586/-531
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
    « Reply #121 on: December 06, 2017, 11:22:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Meg,  I missed this part in Neil's long post.  Thanks for pointing it out.

    This must be an accurate account and inline with Holy Jacinta's warning about the sins of impurity, sending most souls to Hell.

    Let's play it again:

    Yet knowing all this she was not afraid of the operation! She only had one fear.
    .
    You would never guess what her one fear was, especially if you think that children ought to be proactively informed about sexual sins.
    .
    Her one and only fear was that during preparation for surgery, the exposure of her body to the hospital workers might be a near occasion for them to commit a mental sin of impurity in their hearts.

    Modern perverts will assure you that since there is no victim there is nothing wrong. But the something wrong is in the heart of the one who believes that, because the victim is one's own soul.
    .
    Now, tell me that anyone knowing about her suffering willingly to OVERCOME in others the sin of entirely subjective impurity and appreciating her sacrifice to the point of willingness to imitate her heroic virtue, could ever bring himself to enjoy the illicit allurement of sinful impurity.

    I'm not understanding the point you are making here, Incredulous. I'm contesting that blessed Jacinta ever had that concern in the first place. It just sounds odd. In what account (book?) have you read it? I'd like to know where this account comes from. I don't think it's true.


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8082
    • Reputation: +2932/-500
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
    « Reply #122 on: December 06, 2017, 11:28:55 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?
    It is firstly inappropriate to use those words in Church, in the presence of Our Lord in the tabernacle. There is no reason on earth for them, not ever imo. In private conversation with your own child while educating them, it MIGHT be appropriate only if they push for it, but there are much more prudential ways to get the message across without mentioning it by name. 
    Do not be afraid to abandon yourself unreservedly to His loving Providence, for a child cannot perish in the arms of a Father Who is omnipotent.

    St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

    Offline Nooseph Polten

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 155
    • Reputation: +63/-50
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
    « Reply #123 on: December 06, 2017, 11:54:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is firstly inappropriate to use those words in Church, in the presence of Our Lord in the tabernacle. There is no reason on earth for them, not ever imo. In private conversation with your own child while educating them, it MIGHT be appropriate only if they push for it, but there are much more prudential ways to get the message across without mentioning it by name.
    It IS appropriate if they push for it or if they need it. In which case, it would be best to mention it by name. 
    +Truth and Justice for all+
                  JMJ

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11966
    • Reputation: +6297/-895
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
    « Reply #124 on: December 06, 2017, 12:07:23 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.  

    best articulation of the problem right here


    Offline Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4443
    • Reputation: +2562/-52
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
    « Reply #125 on: December 06, 2017, 02:51:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?

    Purity means understanding God's plan for reproduction and understanding the beauty of it and how the fight to keep it special is God's will and is a gift to one's future spouse.  A positive outlook on reproduction is better than avoiding the issue.  Keeping an adolescent ignorant, in my opinion, keeps them with a childlike understanding of reality, when they are fighting adult battles of concupiscence.  Just as attraction to sin is part of our fallen nature, so concupiscense is part of every person's battle to heaven.  One cannot "protect" their adolescent in a bubble and expect that this will somehow make them pure.  On the contrary, it just keeps them ignorant of the beauty of purity and why it's special, in real terms.  Ignorance will not lessen the battle against the flesh, it will only be harder because the battle will be fought to "avoid evil" instead of "protecting good".  And human psychology has proven that it is easier to fight for something good rather than just fight aimlessly against evil.
    Pax Vobis, Your questions should be directed to Neil. It was not my post. I just thought it a font of wisdom and I thanked him for it.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1401
    • Reputation: +956/-287
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
    « Reply #126 on: December 06, 2017, 03:32:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • My bad.

    Offline Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4443
    • Reputation: +2562/-52
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
    « Reply #127 on: December 06, 2017, 05:56:22 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?

    Purity means understanding God's plan for reproduction and understanding the beauty of it and how the fight to keep it special is God's will and is a gift to one's future spouse.  A positive outlook on reproduction is better than avoiding the issue.  Keeping an adolescent ignorant, in my opinion, keeps them with a childlike understanding of reality, when they are fighting adult battles of concupiscence.  Just as attraction to sin is part of our fallen nature, so concupiscense is part of every person's battle to heaven.  One cannot "protect" their adolescent in a bubble and expect that this will somehow make them pure.  On the contrary, it just keeps them ignorant of the beauty of purity and why it's special, in real terms.  Ignorance will not lessen the battle against the flesh, it will only be harder because the battle will be fought to "avoid evil" instead of "protecting good".  And human psychology has proven that it is easier to fight for something good rather than just fight aimlessly against evil.
    Nevertheess, I would make some comments.
    .
    1. realistic, mature, catholic introduction to marriage and reproduction should be tailored to the needs of the receiver, either individually or as a couple. 12 to 14 year olds do not need to hear the same thing as those who are close approaching marriage. Discretion is not very puritantical and uncatholic.
    .
    2. A child is not a subject for sex instruction, which can actually interfere in their natural learning processes. Children should be allowed to be children - without being burdened with knowledge they have no need of. Children can be naturally inquisitive and their questions should answered in such a way that their natural innocence is not disturbed by any unnecessary information that they are not asking for. 
    .
    3. Knowledge should be at the appropriate time, by the parents, and in a manner which will lead the child to understand God's plan and have a healthy attitude to sex. Knowledge does not lead to impurity, and neither does lack of it.

    I think you have a poor understanding of what purity is. Of course a 2 year old is pure and innocent. Purity is more than a virtue. It means uncontaminated. Parents have a duty to keep their children uncontaminated as far as they are able. That means protecting the from unwanted influences.

    There are folk posting here who unfortunately have been contaminated by what is loosely known as modern "education" 


    Offline Fanny

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 124
    • Reputation: +40/-58
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
    « Reply #128 on: December 06, 2017, 09:30:11 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Butlers lives of the saints reflection for today, feast of st. Nicholas:

    "Those who would enter heaven must be as little children, whose greatest glory is their innocence.  Now, two things are ours to do: first to reserve it in ourselves, or regain it by penance; secondly to love and shield it in others."

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14467
    • Reputation: +7317/-164
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
    « Reply #129 on: December 06, 2017, 11:56:39 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote from: Pax Vobis on Today at 07:28:58 AM
    Quote
    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?

    Purity means understanding God's plan for reproduction and understanding the beauty of it and how the fight to keep it special is God's will and is a gift to one's future spouse.  A positive outlook on reproduction is better than avoiding the issue.  Keeping an adolescent ignorant, in my opinion, keeps them with a childlike understanding of reality, when they are fighting adult battles of concupiscence.  Just as attraction to sin is part of our fallen nature, so concupiscense is part of every person's battle to heaven.  One cannot "protect" their adolescent in a bubble and expect that this will somehow make them pure.  On the contrary, it just keeps them ignorant of the beauty of purity and why it's special, in real terms.  Ignorance will not lessen the battle against the flesh, it will only be harder because the battle will be fought to "avoid evil" instead of "protecting good".  And human psychology has proven that it is easier to fight for something good rather than just fight aimlessly against evil.
    .
    Nevertheess, I would make some comments.
    .
    1. realistic, mature, catholic introduction to marriage and reproduction should be tailored to the needs of the receiver, either individually or as a couple. 12 to 14 year olds do not need to hear the same thing as those who are close approaching marriage. Discretion is not very puritantical and uncatholic.
    .
    2. A child is not a subject for sex instruction, which can actually interfere in their natural learning processes. Children should be allowed to be children - without being burdened with knowledge they have no need of. Children can be naturally inquisitive and their questions should answered in such a way that their natural innocence is not disturbed by any unnecessary information that they are not asking for.
    .
    3. Knowledge should be at the appropriate time, by the parents, and in a manner which will lead the child to understand God's plan and have a healthy attitude to sex. Knowledge does not lead to impurity, and neither does lack of it.

    I think you have a poor understanding of what purity is. Of course a 2 year old is pure and innocent. Purity is more than a virtue. It means uncontaminated. Parents have a duty to keep their children uncontaminated as far as they are able. That means protecting the from unwanted influences.

    There are folk posting here who unfortunately have been contaminated by what is loosely known as modern "education"
    .
    Nadir, your post is refreshing to read.
    .
    I have some comments:
    .
    Pax Vobis wrote:
    Quote
    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.
    .
    I do not approve of your choice of the word "reproduction." It suggests atheism, scientism, animalistic, mechanical/plumbing aspect of what should be a sacred human function. For man, it is procreation that you are talking about and it is procreation that you should say, not "reproduction."  Reproduction is what a Xerox machine does, or a widget factory. The marital act is man's cooperation with God's act of creating an immortal soul, or perhaps more than one. It has nothing to do with "reproducing" anything, and this word ought to be abandoned by all Catholics like it's radioactive.
    .
    The enemies of the Church selectively use "reproduction" and they do so for a reason.
    .
    Beyond that, sex education should have no part of Catholic education. The recent innovation of its introduction in so-called Catholic schools is entirely a consequence of the putrid errors of Vatican II. There is nothing "realistic" about the need for an adolescent to learn about the mundane specifics of sexual intercourse. It is rather the parents' place to make sure that the important things are kept in their important places so as not to be overtaken by prurient passions and brute impulses. The parents' place is to safeguard purity and to encourage the development of virtue so the child can weather the storm of impurity that he will ultimately face out in the world.
    .
    Why should a parent have to explain the various physical impacts of narcotics to a child in order to discourage the child's use of them? Nor should a parent have to resort to lying about it in order to induce avoidance.
    .
    It is insulting to a virtuous child to have a priest in confession suggest that the child might be holding back on confessing a sin of the flesh, and no priest should ever ask a penitent if he or she has committed "masturbation."
    .
    PV:
    Quote
    2.  Why is it assumed that to keep a child "pure" means you keep them ignorant?  This is not logical.
    .
    Children are going to learn the physical facts of human sexual relations by listening to their friends or reading certain publications, and there isn't anything a parent can do about that. But those things are not what a parent needs to teach his children. His example of NOT talking about them is added emphasis to how powerful they are and they are a matter of deepest personal intimacy, not meant for casual conversation. If a boy is going to enter the priesthood, or a girl, should she become a sister, what good would it have done for his or her parents to have explained "the birds and the bees" to them?
    .
    PV:
    Quote
    3.  Why is it assumed that knowledge will lead to impurity?
    .
    It's possible that a parent being terrified of the subject could lead the child to impurity. The parents' place is to be sure the child learns that purity is very important and something to be greatly treasured. Furthermore, that any sin against purity, even if it does not involve physical acts, should be confessed to a priest under the seal of confession. That is the "knowledge" that takes first place in priority, not daring to explain mechanics.
    .
    PV:
    Quote
    Purity means understanding God's plan for reproduction [procreation] and understanding the beauty of it and how the fight to keep it special is God's will and is a gift to one's future spouse.  A positive outlook on reproduction [procreation] is better than avoiding the issue.
    .
    You really need to learn the difference it makes in your thinking when you stop using "reproduction" (which is a falsehood) and START using the proper word in its place. Maybe you're much too proud to listen and learn from the likes of me, but you would be doing yourself a favor and a work of improvement that could have long-reaching consequences, if you would recognize that the use of the word "reproduction" destroys the virtuous sense and holiness that you should be trying to develop, protect, and pass along to the next generation. Just by changing out that one word, your two sentences above take on a whole new meaning!
    .
    .
    .
    Very appropriate post by Fanny:
    .
    Posted by: Fanny
    « on: Today at 07:30:11 PM »


    Butler's Lives of the Saints reflection for today, feast of St. Nicholas:

    "Those who would enter heaven must be as little children, whose greatest glory is their innocence.  Now, two things are ours to do: first to reserve it in ourselves, or regain it by penance; secondly to love and shield it in others."
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Incredulous

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3398
    • Reputation: +4524/-155
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
    « Reply #130 on: December 07, 2017, 05:42:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'm not understanding the point you are making here, Incredulous. I'm contesting that blessed Jacinta ever had that concern in the first place. It just sounds odd. In what account (book?) have you read it? I'd like to know where this account comes from. I don't think it's true.

    I couldn't find the reference Meg. Maybe Neil has something?

    I recall reading an antique book on the Fatima children.  It was one that had been published, perhaps in the 1940's and was free, not done through a publishing house.  It contained many insights into Bl. Jacinta's and Bl. Francisco's final days.  It seems they died of the Spanish influenza pandemic?

    Jacinta's physician had cut a whole in her chest to try and relieve pressure there. 
    He took out some ribs and her suffering must have been terrible?  
    Of course, Our Lady foretold that she would die alone and she offered it up for the conversion of poor sinners.

    The emphasis on modesty in the hospital seems to be inline with her piety and concern for purity.  That is my point.
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi


    Online Motorede

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 133
    • Reputation: +100/-30
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
    « Reply #131 on: December 07, 2017, 07:18:26 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Certainly not, I would have been mortified, and such things should never be spoken of in mixed company,  delicacy  demands it.
    One of the Fathers of the Church (can't remember exactly which one) said:
     "The ears of the people are holier than the mouths of the priests". I read that many, many years ago and was never sure what he really meant--until now, after listening to Fr.P's words and then observing the reactions from the people here. 

    Offline Meg

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1482
    • Reputation: +586/-531
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
    « Reply #132 on: December 07, 2017, 10:29:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I couldn't find the reference Meg. Maybe Neil has something?

    I recall reading an antique book on the Fatima children.  It was one that had been published, perhaps in the 1940's and was free, not done through a publishing house.  It contained many insights into Bl. Jacinta's and Bl. Francisco's final days.  It seems they died of the Spanish influenza pandemic?

    Jacinta's physician had cut a whole in her chest to try and relieve pressure there.
    He took out some ribs and her suffering must have been terrible?  
    Of course, Our Lady foretold that she would die alone and she offered it up for the conversion of poor sinners.

    The emphasis on modesty in the hospital seems to be inline with her piety and concern for purity.  That is my point.

    Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I know that Bl. Jacinta had the surgery to remove some or part of her ribs, and that she didn't want any anesthesia during the surgery. But in all of the accounts I have read, there's not been anything about what Neil described. It's not a big deal, though. I just thought that it didn't sound right. She died just short of her 10th birthday. 

    Offline Fanny

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 124
    • Reputation: +40/-58
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
    « Reply #133 on: December 07, 2017, 11:29:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • One of the Fathers of the Church (can't remember exactly which one) said:
     "The ears of the people are holier than the mouths of the priests". I read that many, many years ago and was never sure what he really meant--until now, after listening to Fr.P's words and then observing the reactions from the people here.
    According to this website the quote is from Calvin.
    http://puttingoutthefire.blogspot.com/2006/09/explaining-kurt-marquart-sort-of.html?m=1
    But this one says it was st. Chrysostom.
    http://michaelnewnham.com/things-i-used-to-think-duane-w-h-arnold-phd/

    Online Merry

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 158
    • Reputation: +82/-35
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr. Pfeiffer gone mad? VERY Inappropriate sermon.
    « Reply #134 on: December 07, 2017, 01:57:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Calvin could quote  Chrysostom.
    If any one saith that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and on that account wrests to some sort of metaphor those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost...,"  Let Him Be Anathama.  -COUNCIL OF TRENT Sess VII Canon II “On Baptism"

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16