While I consider the death penalty a bit extreme ...It seems to be, but I am no saint, that the death penalty would actually be more charitable for such people than to let them continue hurting children. Better that a millstone be tied around his neck and flung into the deepest part of the sea...
For anyone still doubting whether or not fr. Pfeiffer and OLMC is quickly becoming SSJ, part 2, I encourage you to ask fr. Pfeiffer his opinion of fr. Urrutigoity.
He recently made comments which support fr. Urrutigoity, saying fr. U is not a pervert and because he has not been convicted of anything, in the lay legal system, fr. U is innocent.
If you don't know anything about fr. U and the SSJ, of which fr. Marshall Roberts, aka fr. Mary of the pillar, was a founding member and stayed 2 years, Google it. But do it on an empty stomach because it may make you vomit.
I was told by a priest recently that, according to st. Plus X: fr. U, laicised fr. Ensey, laicised fr tetherow, fr. Roberts, and their ilk should be put to death for their crimes.
How many children must suffer at the hands of these perverts before fr. Pfeiffer and fr. Hewko wake up? Just goes to show how far fr. Pfeiffer believes the end justifies the means, as long as it benefits him.
He doesnt think about the safety of children. How can he care about your soul?
So I've read up on the several priests in questions and the pattern seems pretty obvious with those pedo priests. So a few questions here.Good for you to have taken the initiative. I hope you did your research on an empty stomach.
1) Is Fr. Pfeiffer trying to stand by fellow priests and rehabilitate? (naïve but non-malicious)
2) Is he drawing from the bottom of the barrel because he has no one else to further his version of tradition?
3) Am i understanding correctly Fr. Pfeiffer truly doesn't believe the accusations, the court docs, conviction/laicized because he views it as an attack on tradition?
4) SSJ were a group of repeat offending pedos trying to hide each other. It begs the questions why would Fr. Pfeiffer stake the reputation of Boston on supporting repeat sex offenders?
5) Out of curiosity, what was done 100 years ago, 500 years ago, 1000 years ago when pedophilia reared its vile head? Were they transferred and taken in by some other order? While this isn't pleasant topic, it can't be unprecedented in the history of the Church.
6) Fr. Hewko is far worse in all this than Fr. Pfeiffer in my opinion. He desired to be a martyr like the Christeros so bad, he martyred himself with his exit speech. He has tied his rope to Fr. Pfeiffer like a sycophant. You can't tell me that he was brave enough to leave the SSPX the way that he did, but he can't leave an even worse situation involving pedos. Fr. Hewko always gathered boys wherever he went, and tried to make men out of them. Is he still gathering sheep, while the other priest protects the wolves and pen them together? ...he is complicit. There is no room for pedophilia in Catholicism.
Is Urruigoity actually going to reside or be associated with OLMC? Or is Fr. Pfeiffer mainly just making a stupid and rather frightening comment about Urrutigoity?Perhaps fr. Pfeiffers supportive comment about fr. Urrutigoity is his way of preparing his followers for fr. Urrutigoitys arrival to OLMC? I don't know. Time will tell.
Hopefully, Urrutigoity is not going to be associated in any way with OLMC. I recall reading the details (on the old Angelqueen forum many years ago) about as to why Urrutigoity was booted out of the SSPX. It's quite unpleasant. I don't see how Fr. Pfeiffer can defend him in any way at all.
It seems to be, but I am no saint, that the death penalty would actually be more charitable for such people than to let them continue hurting children. Better that a millstone be tied around his neck and flung into the deepest part of the sea...
To whom did Fr P make these comments? Are they in one of his Youtube sermons?
He recently made comments which support fr. Urrutigoity, saying fr. U is not a pervert and because he has not been convicted of anything, in the lay legal system, fr. U is innocent.
Well, there is in between ... you prevent them from continuing to hurt children by locking them away for life. Not that I'm against the death penalty per se.
“Thus, as soon as someone has fallen into this abyss of extreme perdition, he is exiled from the heavenly motherland, separated from the Body of Christ, censured by the authority of the whole Church, condemned by the judgment of all the Holy Fathers, despised by men on earth and rebuked by the society of heavenly citizens. He creates for himself an earth of iron and a sky of bronze.
"On the one hand, laden with the weight of his crime, he is unable to rise; on the other hand, he is no longer able to conceal his evil in the refuge of ignorance. He cannot be happy while he lives nor have hope when he dies, because here and now he is obliged to suffer the ignominy of men’s derision and, later, the torment of eternal condemnation."
To whom did Fr P make these comments? Are they in one of his Youtube sermons?I am not at liberty to reveal, but I heard it from 2 people who are very close to Fr. Pfeiffer.
Well, there is in between ... you prevent them from continuing to hurt children by locking them away for life. Not that I'm against the death penalty per se.But what if they continue to sin by wilfully dwelling on the subject in their mind? Perhaps, in st. Pius X judgement, such people regularly dwell on it and that that part is not rehabilitatable. In other words, actions are preventable by locking them up for life, but thoughts are not preventable. As such, the death penalty would be more charitable to help them stop sinning and reaching a deeper pit of hell when they die.
Fr.Pfeiffer supports Fr. Urritigoity
Fr. Hewko is far worse in all this than Fr. Pfeiffer in my opinion. He desired to be a martyr like the Christeros so bad, he martyred himself with his exit speech. He has tied his rope to Fr. Pfeiffer like a sycophant. You can't tell me that he was brave enough to leave the SSPX the way that he did, but he can't leave an even worse situation involving pedos. Fr. Hewko always gathered boys wherever he went, and tried to make men out of them. Is he still gathering sheep, while the other priest protects the wolves and pen them together? ...he is complicit.Weird and wild stuff! All I know is that it smells like there is something seriously wrong there with both of them.
But what if they continue to sin by wilfully dwelling on the subject in their mind? Perhaps, in st. Pius X judgement, such people regularly dwell on it and that that part is not rehabilitatable. In other words, actions are preventable by locking them up for life, but thoughts are not preventable. As such, the death penalty would be more charitable to help them stop sinning and reaching a deeper pit of hell when they die.Good observation Grasshopper.
But what if they continue to sin by wilfully dwelling on the subject in their mind? Perhaps, in st. Pius X judgement, such people regularly dwell on it and that that part is not rehabilitatable. In other words, actions are preventable by locking them up for life, but thoughts are not preventable. As such, the death penalty would be more charitable to help them stop sinning and reaching a deeper pit of hell when they die.
Even if their sinful INCLINATIONS and temptations to sin never go away, they could still get to the point of regretting their actions and having sincere contrition and at least FIGHTING their sinful condition.Fine by me, so long as the pervs are fighting it from an isolated island surrounded by sharks.
There are lots of people in habitual sin. So, are sins of thought now worthy of the death penalty? In that case, you could safely execute 95% of the earth's population. You can't make decisions about capital punishment based on considerations like stopping them from reaching a deeper place in hell. That's up to God. God could strike them down whenever He chooses. And, if He doesn't, maybe it's because He feels the person does in fact deserve a greater eternal punishment. We are not in a position to make those kinds of decisions. Using criteria like that to argue for capital punishment opens up a nightmarish can of worms. Why can't I take it upon myself, then, to execute my neighbor who's a chronic blasphemer or adulterer? Ah, he's never going to change, so let's just execute him. But, you know what, people CAN change? Or do you not believe in the power of God's grace? Even the most hardened sinner can be converted. Even if their sinful INCLINATIONS and temptations to sin never go away, they could still get to the point of regretting their actions and having sincere contrition and at least FIGHTING their sinful condition.Who's child are you gambling with then you say "or don't you believe in God's grace?" Habitual blaspheming is not equitable to habitual molestation. While I acknowledge that people can and do change, the severity of these accusations, repeated patterns of behavior, and growing number of stories cry for action. As a father, I can not and will not allow this as a possibility of happening. While you can't base capital punishment ideals on preventing a deeper decent into hell, you sure as hell can execute them to prevent exposing any additional son or daughter to life alter scandal and future sins.
Who's child are you gambling with then you say "or don't you believe in God's grace?" Habitual blaspheming is not equitable to habitual molestation. While I acknowledge that people can and do change, the severity of these accusations, repeated patterns of behavior, and growing number of stories cry for action. As a father, I can not and will not allow this as a possibility of happening. While you can't base capital punishment ideals on preventing a deeper decent into hell, you sure as hell can execute them to prevent exposing any additional son or daughter to life alter scandal and future sins.I agree with you, RoughAshlar. Non of you may know anyone who has been through these things, but I do. And these events destroy them inside and out. They leave the Church, and others (or the same in question) attempt ѕυιcιdє. It's horrendous.
For the record, we just spoke to Fr. Pfeiffer a few hours ago, in person, and he does not think this about Fr. Urrutigoity.Fr. Pfeiffer lies, as it benefits him.
Your statements are false.
Good luck picking up all the feathers you spread.
A woman once went for confession, accusing herself badmouthing people. The confessor, a wise old man, listened lovingly, absolved her and gave her a strange penance. He told her to go home, get a hen and come back, plucking the bird’s feathers as she walked along the street.
When she had returned to him he said: “Now go back home and, as you go, pick up each feather that you plucked on the way.” The woman told him that it would be impossible since the wind had almost certainly blown them away in the meantime.
And the confessor told her “You see, just as it is impossible to pick up the feathers once the wind has scattered them, it is likewise impossible to gather gossip and calumnies back up once they have come out of our mouth.”
True Catholics don't speak like this.True Catholics speak Truth.
"Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them." (Matthew 7:20)
By the way, the quote doesn't refer to material things, like someone's work, but to a good will and good deeds (see Cornelius a Lapide).
Wow!!
Looks like the hard core/headed defenders of Boston have taken some pages from MHFM's playbook on how to shout down one's foe...
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-iVe6KPrNSbE/UImOUSaj-0I/AAAAAAAAyVY/qlnZ5x4e7A4/w800-h800/frustrated-dog.jpeg)
Oh, ye protestant, ye forget the beginning and ending of that chapter:Just a reminder:Luke 12:49-53
Similarly, you forget the ending:Just a reminder:
Matthew 10:34–37