Sermons that Warn Against Impurity
Jan 23, 2018 20:39:00 GMT
Post by Admin on Jan 23, 2018 20:39:00 GMT
A few months ago, Fr. Pfeiffer gave a sermon against the various sins of impurity that plague our times. In that sermon, Fr. Pfeiffer did not discuss the specifics of those sins, he merely named them, for example, pornography, self-abuse, fornication, etc.
In the passing weeks, a Mr. John Pfeiffer (no relation to Fr. Pfeiffer) wrote to various people, impugning and challenging Fr. Pfeiffer's right to discuss such sins publicly from the pulpit. If this was just one man's opinion, it could easily be left as an issue between Mr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Pfeiffer, something for them to discuss privately.
But since Mr. Pfeiffer went to great lengths to reach as many people as he could and disparage this particular sermon of Fr. Pfeiffer's, it deserves to be addressed publicly. Mr. Pfeiffer's point, that these topics cannot be addressed from the pulpit is so ridiculous, and so contrary to the long history of the Church's priests who have emphatically warned the faithful against impurity throughout the ages, we have not thought it necessary to address it before now. But in a recent example of the prevalence of the impurity of our times, it was recently brought to our attention that just a short time ago, January 14th 2018, a priest of the SSPX, a Fr. Scott Graves in Long Prairie, Minnesota, also gave a sermon on impurity using the words masturbation and pornography. This is just another example of a priest, acting on the ubiquitous temptations facing us today, preaching with clarity from the pulpit.
It would seem, according the private judgments of Mr. John Pfeiffer, that both priests should equally be condemned.
***
Here is the portion of Mr. Pfeiffer's email campaign against Fr. Pfeiffer's sermon against impurity:
Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko public responses to Mr. John Pfeiffer:
At Heaven's request, we should frequently reflect on the fact that Our Lady Herself has repeatedly warned us, both at Fatima and at Quito, that the majority of souls falling into Hell do so by way of sins of impurity.
Are our priests not duty-bound to warn us over and over, as Our Lady has done, of those very sins from which we are most at risk of losing our eternal salvation? Is the clarity with which a priest names those sins a fault of the priest? Is the individual priest not to speak and warn of the very sins he hears repeated over and over again within the confessional? Would not the priests not be remiss in not warning their flocks, like good shepards and not false ones, against the particular wolves that threaten it?
Even mainstream news in its online format is so saturated with scantily-dressed women or stories glorifying homosexual behavior and 'marriages', and now more perversely, even showing pictures of women kissing women or men kissing men on their front pages. The more liberal news outlets frequently highlight transgender issues and gay rights issues. This doesn’t begin to address the billboards and advertisements in every printed magazine and newspapers. Our Lady's words that impurity, like 'a filthy ocean, it will inundate the streets, squares and public places with an astonishing liberty' have already come true.
There is a big difference between teaching how to sin (as occurs in sex education in the schools) and warning against sin which the Church always did and should still do by way of the Ten Commandments. We all learned the word Adultery at the age of reason (six and seven years old) and that it is a mortal sin. But we are not educated in how to go about it.
Again, Fr. Pfeiffer did not discuss the specifics of the sins against purity, he merely named them. The result of the fallacy that John Pfeiffer is advocating ends up being this: Parents do not say or let you children hear those general words from the church, ever, to educate them. Rather, let them learn what those general words are for the first time from their peers, and in consequence, let the world tell the children its definitions. Because as carnal parents, we will not. We want them to be morally stupid and theologically imbalanced.
Thanks be to God for vigilant shepards. May God continue to grant them the graces to not fear the censure of foolish men but to ever fulfill their duty in saving souls from eternal damnation.
In the passing weeks, a Mr. John Pfeiffer (no relation to Fr. Pfeiffer) wrote to various people, impugning and challenging Fr. Pfeiffer's right to discuss such sins publicly from the pulpit. If this was just one man's opinion, it could easily be left as an issue between Mr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Pfeiffer, something for them to discuss privately.
But since Mr. Pfeiffer went to great lengths to reach as many people as he could and disparage this particular sermon of Fr. Pfeiffer's, it deserves to be addressed publicly. Mr. Pfeiffer's point, that these topics cannot be addressed from the pulpit is so ridiculous, and so contrary to the long history of the Church's priests who have emphatically warned the faithful against impurity throughout the ages, we have not thought it necessary to address it before now. But in a recent example of the prevalence of the impurity of our times, it was recently brought to our attention that just a short time ago, January 14th 2018, a priest of the SSPX, a Fr. Scott Graves in Long Prairie, Minnesota, also gave a sermon on impurity using the words masturbation and pornography. This is just another example of a priest, acting on the ubiquitous temptations facing us today, preaching with clarity from the pulpit.
It would seem, according the private judgments of Mr. John Pfeiffer, that both priests should equally be condemned.
***
Here is the portion of Mr. Pfeiffer's email campaign against Fr. Pfeiffer's sermon against impurity:
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 15:57:53 -0600
From: John G. Pfeiffer <jpfeiffer@.... .com>
"Fr. Pfeiffer’s horrific sermon
The second grave unnatural impurity problem is Fr. Pfeiffer’s sermon a few weeks ago which just became known a few days ago. It was a grave scandal! It was revolting and indecent! For forty minutes, he continually talked about masturbation; self-abuse; giving one’s self pleasure; “a man with another man cannot get pregnant”; prostitutes; rape; strip dancers; homosexual prostitutes servicing the men; female prostitutes servicing men; sex; etc. His sermon came straight from hell! Here is the link:
This is a great scandal! Although he condemns unnatural impurity, his sermon ruins the innocent, including but not limited to the families present with small children. The sermon is now on the internet too, to slay more innocent souls. His sermon was gravely sinful in the same way as condemning pornography by holding up large nude pictures and pointing to them and telling the innocent parishioners “this is evil”. Fr. Pfeiffer (objectively) committed the grave sin of ruining the innocent. Fr. Pfeiffer’s sermon rejects St. Paul’s teaching that “fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you”. Ephesians, 5:3.
Fr. Pfeiffer’s words help accomplish a main goal of the homosexuals’ own agenda (carried out by Hollywood and the media) of desensitizing the people to these shocking things, leading them to think such matters are “no big deal”.
Regarding that evil, disgusting sermon of Fr. Pfeiffer, which slays the innocent, Fr. Hewko told me yesterday that he has “a lot to think about and pray about” regarding it. That is a big change (although not enough) from the beginning of my call with him yesterday. At the beginning of that call, he laughed off the sermon. I think his hesitation to admit the evil of this sermon is because it is an even bigger obstacle for him to overcome with Fr. Pfeiffer. Fr. Pfeiffer never admits he is wrong.
My family, other parishioners in the U.S., and at least other two chapel coordinators told the Boston priests that they will never again have anything to do with Boston unless … 2) Fr. Pfeiffer apologizes for that sermon and commits to never speaking that way again; and 3) that Fr. Pfeiffer’s sermon ...[is] permanently pulled off the internet."
From: John G. Pfeiffer <jpfeiffer@.... .com>
"Fr. Pfeiffer’s horrific sermon
The second grave unnatural impurity problem is Fr. Pfeiffer’s sermon a few weeks ago which just became known a few days ago. It was a grave scandal! It was revolting and indecent! For forty minutes, he continually talked about masturbation; self-abuse; giving one’s self pleasure; “a man with another man cannot get pregnant”; prostitutes; rape; strip dancers; homosexual prostitutes servicing the men; female prostitutes servicing men; sex; etc. His sermon came straight from hell! Here is the link:
This is a great scandal! Although he condemns unnatural impurity, his sermon ruins the innocent, including but not limited to the families present with small children. The sermon is now on the internet too, to slay more innocent souls. His sermon was gravely sinful in the same way as condemning pornography by holding up large nude pictures and pointing to them and telling the innocent parishioners “this is evil”. Fr. Pfeiffer (objectively) committed the grave sin of ruining the innocent. Fr. Pfeiffer’s sermon rejects St. Paul’s teaching that “fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you”. Ephesians, 5:3.
Fr. Pfeiffer’s words help accomplish a main goal of the homosexuals’ own agenda (carried out by Hollywood and the media) of desensitizing the people to these shocking things, leading them to think such matters are “no big deal”.
Regarding that evil, disgusting sermon of Fr. Pfeiffer, which slays the innocent, Fr. Hewko told me yesterday that he has “a lot to think about and pray about” regarding it. That is a big change (although not enough) from the beginning of my call with him yesterday. At the beginning of that call, he laughed off the sermon. I think his hesitation to admit the evil of this sermon is because it is an even bigger obstacle for him to overcome with Fr. Pfeiffer. Fr. Pfeiffer never admits he is wrong.
My family, other parishioners in the U.S., and at least other two chapel coordinators told the Boston priests that they will never again have anything to do with Boston unless … 2) Fr. Pfeiffer apologizes for that sermon and commits to never speaking that way again; and 3) that Fr. Pfeiffer’s sermon ...[is] permanently pulled off the internet."
Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko public responses to Mr. John Pfeiffer:
Fr. Pfeiffer: … Thank you for graciously including a link to one of my sermons in your email so that the catechetical truth in it can be spread abroad for the edification of souls. This at least was thoughtful of you. thecatacombs.org/thread/147/introduction-documentation-fr-marshall-roberts
Fr. Hewko: … I thought the conversation was confidential since you appealed to me as a father, sought advice and repeatedly insisted that I accuse Fr. Pfeiffer of committing mortal sin for preaching the sermon against sins of impurity.
Since you chose to make it public, you oblige me to make some clarifications. First, the letter misrepresents my statements as taking lightly the matter regarding Fr. Roberts, when my laughter was rather in surprise at your reaction to Fr. Pfeiffer's sermon as being a mortal sin for him to have preached. I refer you to St. Peter Damian's treatise "The Book of Gommorah" which is far more graphic than anything Fr. Pfeiffer ever said. It has the approbation of Pope Leo IX as well. thecatacombs.org/thread/147/introduction-documentation-fr-marshall-roberts
Fr. Hewko: … I thought the conversation was confidential since you appealed to me as a father, sought advice and repeatedly insisted that I accuse Fr. Pfeiffer of committing mortal sin for preaching the sermon against sins of impurity.
Since you chose to make it public, you oblige me to make some clarifications. First, the letter misrepresents my statements as taking lightly the matter regarding Fr. Roberts, when my laughter was rather in surprise at your reaction to Fr. Pfeiffer's sermon as being a mortal sin for him to have preached. I refer you to St. Peter Damian's treatise "The Book of Gommorah" which is far more graphic than anything Fr. Pfeiffer ever said. It has the approbation of Pope Leo IX as well. thecatacombs.org/thread/147/introduction-documentation-fr-marshall-roberts
At Heaven's request, we should frequently reflect on the fact that Our Lady Herself has repeatedly warned us, both at Fatima and at Quito, that the majority of souls falling into Hell do so by way of sins of impurity.
Our Lady of Good Success: The third reason for the lamp being extinguished is because of the spirit of impurity that will saturate the atmosphere in those times. Like a filthy ocean, it will inundate the streets, squares and public places with an astonishing liberty. There will be almost no virgin souls in the world. Source
Our Lady of Fatima: "More souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason... Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much ...Woe to women lacking in modesty." Source
St. John Vianney, Patron Saint of Parish Priests: “If a priest is determined not to lose his soul,” he exclaimed, “so soon as any disorder arises in the parish, he must trample underfoot all human considerations as well as the fear of the contempt and hatred of his people. He must not allow anything to bar his way in the discharge of duty, even were he certain of being murdered on coming down from the pulpit. A pastor who wants to do his duty must keep his sword in hand at all times. Did not St. Paul himself write to the faithful of Corinth: ‘I most gladly will spend and be spent myself for your souls, although loving you more, I be loved less.’” In his [St. John Vianney] early sermons, he thundered against the prevalent vices of the village of Ars: Blasphemies, cursing, profanation of Sundays, dances and gatherings at taverns, immodest songs and conversations. Source
Our Lady of Fatima: "More souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason... Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much ...Woe to women lacking in modesty." Source
St. John Vianney, Patron Saint of Parish Priests: “If a priest is determined not to lose his soul,” he exclaimed, “so soon as any disorder arises in the parish, he must trample underfoot all human considerations as well as the fear of the contempt and hatred of his people. He must not allow anything to bar his way in the discharge of duty, even were he certain of being murdered on coming down from the pulpit. A pastor who wants to do his duty must keep his sword in hand at all times. Did not St. Paul himself write to the faithful of Corinth: ‘I most gladly will spend and be spent myself for your souls, although loving you more, I be loved less.’” In his [St. John Vianney] early sermons, he thundered against the prevalent vices of the village of Ars: Blasphemies, cursing, profanation of Sundays, dances and gatherings at taverns, immodest songs and conversations. Source
Are our priests not duty-bound to warn us over and over, as Our Lady has done, of those very sins from which we are most at risk of losing our eternal salvation? Is the clarity with which a priest names those sins a fault of the priest? Is the individual priest not to speak and warn of the very sins he hears repeated over and over again within the confessional? Would not the priests not be remiss in not warning their flocks, like good shepards and not false ones, against the particular wolves that threaten it?
“In a 1985 study, Dr. Jennings Bryant found that by the time boys reach the age of 15, some 92 percent had been exposed to pornographic magazines such as Playboy; the average age they started checking out the centerfolds was 11.” Source
There is a big difference between teaching how to sin (as occurs in sex education in the schools) and warning against sin which the Church always did and should still do by way of the Ten Commandments. We all learned the word Adultery at the age of reason (six and seven years old) and that it is a mortal sin. But we are not educated in how to go about it.
Again, Fr. Pfeiffer did not discuss the specifics of the sins against purity, he merely named them. The result of the fallacy that John Pfeiffer is advocating ends up being this: Parents do not say or let you children hear those general words from the church, ever, to educate them. Rather, let them learn what those general words are for the first time from their peers, and in consequence, let the world tell the children its definitions. Because as carnal parents, we will not. We want them to be morally stupid and theologically imbalanced.
Thanks be to God for vigilant shepards. May God continue to grant them the graces to not fear the censure of foolish men but to ever fulfill their duty in saving souls from eternal damnation.