I am posting this again, since it was derailed in the other thread.

I’m sure many will find it helpful:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/ronconte.com/2018/06/05/what-heribert-jone-wrote-in-moral-theology/amp/

I thought this wasn't supposed to be posted again after the other thread was locked.

It is certainly legitimate to have a problem with Jone's Moral Theology.

I never said it wasn't legitimate to disagree with that particular opinion.

What I have a serious issue with is imputing mortal sin to those who happen to accept that opinion.  I cited St. Alphonsus himself, who taught that Catholics may, without sin, act on any "probable" opinion (e.g. something which is taught in approved text by theologians).

In addition, I was seeking an actual rational argument for why the position is wrong.

SeanJohnson just kept quoting St. Alphonsus over and over again.

I explained why his analogy with fornication fails, and why his argument was mistaken ... omnis comparatio claudicat.

Instead of rebuttal to my argument about why he was mistaken, Sean kept reposting the same quote over and over again, began to escalate into claiming that I held St. Alphonsus in "contempt", referring to me as Ladislaus the Sodomite, and then claiming that I was condoning ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.

He also kept appealing to his Novus Ordo source, Conte, and I pointed out how Conte was misunderstanding and misrepresenting Jone.

I am perfectly willing to entertain actual arguments for why this position of Jone is incorrect.  But to denounce this text as garbage due to disagreeing with one opinion is unacceptable.  This text had Church approval in multiple translations into various languages.  It was intended as a guide for Confessors ... a handy pocket manual that did not make arguments but was summarizing the state of the question currently held in his day.

My BIGGER problem with SeanJohnson is his regular imputation of mortal sin to those following opinions which have ecclesiastical approval.  This was NOT the first time.  I call this out as a bad fruit of R&R, the substitution of Church authority with the private judgment of SeanJohnson.

I too disagree with Pius XII's approval of NFP in his Allocution to Midwives.  Nevertheless, if I were a priest, I would not deny absolution to anyone practicing NFP under the conditions stipulated by theologians as meeting the "grave reason" requirement of Pius XII.  I am not in a position of imposing my own opinion on the consciences of others.  I might try to persuade someone that it's wrong, but that's as far as it goes.

I asked SeanJohnson to answer this question:

If you were a priest, would you refuse absolution to someone who engaged in this practice even if they considered it not to be mortal sin based on an appeal to Jone.  He did not answer.

I am posting this again, since it was derailed in the other thread.

I’m sure many will find it helpful:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/ronconte.com/2018/06/05/what-heribert-jone-wrote-in-moral-theology/amp/

Conte opens the article by begging the question:

There are many things wrong with that statement. How can a husband not have a “sodomitic intention” when he is in fact committing sodomy?

He assumes that the person is committing sodomy.  Jone denies this of the activity in question.  So this egregious example of petitio principii ("begging the question") is an example of what you get from Novus Ordo "theologians" who have no formal training in Catholic logic, philosophy, and theology.

Then he continues in the article with this same mistake, claiming that Jone contradicts himself ... which Jone simply does not.  This allegation of contradiction is based on his initial mistake of having begged the question.  When Jone is speaking of the wife not being able to actively participate in it, he's referring to ACTUAL sodomy ... as defined by Jone (and misunderstood by Conte).

Consequently, all of Conte's article is nonsense.  There may be other arguments against this practice, but none of them appear in this screed by Conte.

I know I’m going to get blasted for this, but I think the problem with Sean and others who hold the R&R position, is the fact that they are so used to defying what they believe is legitimate authority that they have no problem with lessening the status of the pre Vatican II authorities. I see this as a very serious problem in the future when we do have a true pope. Are the R&R adherents going to sift through his acts and laws and believe that they are themselves the final decision makers?  Most of us who hold the sedevacantist position don’t have that problem. There is a line that we draw. If the person is a true pope we simply follow him, no questions asked. 

I will move this post to another thread......sorry for the derailment.

Then Conte goes on this diatribe:

I would also like to point out that the entire book “Moral Theology” by Rev. Heribert Jone is a series of unsupported claims. The book is a long chain of baseless assertions, with no theological arguments of any length or substance. He just tells you what he thinks is moral or immoral. He usually provides nothing to support these assertions, not even a bare citation. We are supposed to take his word for all of this. So his book titled “Moral Theology” actually contains very little theology. Is the book “highly regarded”? I don’t think so. Is the publication of the book by TAN Books and Publishers proof that the book is orthodox or reliable? That is a laughable claim. A commercial publishing company cannot exercise the Magisterium, and they do not have the role to decide what is and is not orthodox teaching.

Uhm, Conte, would you please bother to read the PREFACE of Jone's book?  He admits that he is not making any arguments, but is listing in concise format the prevailing theological opinion on every point in the book.  All of the Traditional moral theology manuals had been FILLED with such "argument", and Jone deliberately and intentionally avoids these due to the purpose of the book ... to provide a relatively CONCISE (vs. 10,000-page 5-volume moral theology treatises) reference manual.  It's like taking the 10,000-page Oxford English dictionary and distilling it into a little 200-page pocket dictionary; to accomplish this, one must remove all the lengthy citations to places in English literature where any given word appears.  This book was evaluated and approved by Church authorities ... in several language translations.  Uhm, no, Conte, its publication by TAN does not give it any credibility ... but have you forgotten about (or just ignored) the multiple ecclesiastical Imprimaturs and Nihil obstats that this book received ... in multiple languages.  Conte must not remember how the Church used to do things.  Theologians could not simply self-publish stuff or go rogue; they had to get ecclesiastical approval for their works.  Yes, that's a foreign concept to the Novus Ordo mind.  Nowadays, any ignoramus jackass can host his own theological blog.  In fact, in days when there wasn't this vacuum of authority, most of us would likely be forbidden from publicly (in this forum) attempting to represent Church teaching.

This here is just for the 1961 printing in English.  Every edition in every language had to have this set of ecclesiastical approvals:

It is wrong for any catholic to hold any theologian up as infallible, whether one worships +Bellarmine (on the papal question) or +Alphonsus (all moral questions).  Both sedes and R&R can be guilty.  The problem is due to both the chaos in the church and a lack of humility.  We’re all tempted to err in this area; post-V2 is like a post-apocalyptic movie where catholic society no longer exists. 

That's a straw man.  Absolutely  nobody here says that Jone was infallible.  Quo disagrees with Jone, and yet he rightly states that Catholics are entitled to follow Jone.  So, despite a disagreement on the particulars, my disagreement with Quo would be much more friendly and civil.  I wouldn't spend 5 minutes debating this with him.  What I get worked up about is the attitude towards Church authority.  What I object to is Sean's trashing of the book that I posted as a reference.  Back in the 1940s, a lay person might ask his Confessor, and would likely get a Jone answer.  And he would accept this with peace of soul.  His duties of state do not require that he be a theologian.  That's why the responsibility of a Confessor is so great.  Lay theologians is a nasty post-V2 aberration ... born out of necessity due to a vacuum of legitimate authority.  Even priests were never considered theologians ... only those with advanced education beyond seminary.

If the book was imprimatur'ed, doesn't that mean that the Church is declaring that the book is free of doctrinal or moral error? And if so, why would anything included in it be a matter of someone's "opinion"?