Johnson, you probably have no clue as to what "equiprobabilism" even means, do you?

HINT:  it doesn't mean what you obviously think it does.

It's simply a variant on probabilism that St. Alphonsus eventually gravitated toward to combat the extreme application of probabilism into laxism.

It does not mean, like you probably imagine, that the opinion you choose must in fact be equally probable with the other opinion.

It simply rules out the outlying cases.  Its principles states that if a less-safe position is clearly and certainly much less probable than the safer opinion, you have to go with the safer.

And the problem remains.  Who decides which is the more probable opinion?  SeanJohnson?  SeanJohnson can decide for himself of course.  But SeanJohnson may not impose his conclusions on others.  In many cases, the theologians differ regarding the note they assign to an opinion.  Some might hold one opinion to be more probable, others that another is more probable.  Who decides?

ANSWER (which is apparent to everyone who hasn't replaced Church authority with his own private judgment):  it's the CHURCH.  Not SeanJohnson.

Catholic Encyclopedia:

Æquiprobabilists reply that their system merely asks, that if after due investigation it is found that the less safe opinion is notably and certainly less probable than the safe opinion, the law must be observed. The necessary investigation has frequently been already made by experts, and others, who are not experts, are safe in accepting the conclusions to which the experts adhere.

Jone's work received multiple approvals in several different languages from the Church hierarchy.  Jone put this opinion in his book precisely because it was the prevailing opinion among the experts at the time.  When a layman (non-expert, unless you happen to be named SeanJohnson) find a certain opinion in Jone, which is a compilation of the opinions of said experts, one is safe to accept and to follow the conclusion. SeanJohnson has no authority to impose his own conscience on anyone else.

BTW:  theologians also disagree on probabilism itself.  There are probabiliorists, probabilists, equiprobabilists, laxists, and (the latest) the compensationists.  Compensationists do a good job of reconciling many of the conflicting principles among the other school. So there's the conundrum of having to decided which of THESE systems is in fact more probable.

So, if the theologians themselves disagree on these things, then how is a layman expected to sit down and pick one?

ANSWER:  they're not.  If a CHURCH-APPROVED theology manual contains a compendium and summary of expert opinion on a particular topic, lay people are in fact safe in informing their consciences according to the manual ... Johnson's blustering to the contrary notwithstanding.

See Jone (and I agree with him), considered St. Alphonsus' position on this matter to be in fact the less probable opinion.

Sigh...another 4-post blast by Laxislaus..,

I note you continue to repent of your falsification of St. Alphonsus as a probabilist.

Consequently, you are in no position to comment on him one way or the other, if you can’t even admit him to be an aequiprobabilist, since misrepresenting his moral system will impute to him principles he opposed in the probabilists.

Your pertinacity in this respect manifests tour tremendous pride (20k+ posts without ever having been wrong, and even to the point of imputing falsity to St. Alphonsus in order to preserve the streak!) is impeding your ability (ie., bad disposition) to accept the truth.

But you will not be able to circuмvent the fact that St. Alphonsus (with whom you seem to have recurring issues on several points) repeatedly denied being a probabilist: 

A fact that slows you down not in the least in declaring him a probabilist!

So to answer the question of this thread:

Is it wrong to attack Jone?  No, you can attack Jone all you want.  I, on the other hand, provided substantial rational arguments in his defense that Johnson never rebutted.

Is it wrong to impute sin to those who follow Jone's opinion and to thereby impose your conscience on others as if you actually had the authority or even competence to do so?  ABSOLUTELY.

Even Jone imputed (venial) sin to those who performed this intrinsically evil, unnatural (and condemned in scripture) act.

The issue of St. Alphonsus being a probabilist is irrelevant.  The question is, can one follow Jone or not?  St Alphonsus didn't condemn Jone because they weren't alive at the same time.  Until Sean finds a DIRECT condemnation/reason against Jone from a church-approved source, then it appears that Jone can be followed.  I think more facts are necessary.

Pax-
The issue of St. Alphonsus NOT being a probabilist is highly relevant, since one of Ladislaus’s arguments is that St. Alphonsus being a probabilist (false) would have permitted the faithful to follow Jone.
But a probabilist says one can follow the less safe opinion against a certainly more safe opinion in favor of liberty.
An aequiprobabilist rejects that principle, and says you either have to follow the safer opinion, or, in a controverted matter, the two sides need to be equally (or almost equally) probable, to be at liberty.
But upon a clearly less probable opinion, the aequiprobabilist says you cannot act, while the probabilist says you can.
So the matter is definitely relevant, and if Ladislaus is refusing to acknowledge that which the entire church has acknowledged for 350 years (ie., that Alphonsus rejected the probabilism Ladislaus attributes to him), other than enormous pride, it is precisely because he wants Alphonsus to say that one can follow the less probable opinion against a certainly more probable opinion, which is why Ladislaus wants to make Alphonsus a probabilist (ie., Ladislaus has no idea which opinion was the more accepted opinion, but in case Jone really was in the great minority, he wants to hedge his bets, even though today he declared Jone to be in the majority).
He really has no idea.
Meanwhile, I will be researching the matter, and in due course, I will post the opinions of the most eminent moralists (Alphonsus, Aquinas, Augustine, et al).

You are making this into an Alphonsus vs Jone dispute, which is not the full story.  Even if St Alphonsus wasn't a probablist, how can you explain that from the early 1900s onward, Jone's views have been accepted/tolerated?  I agree that morals don't change, no matter what century you live in, but the fact that Jone was never condemned is a fact that needs to be addressed on its own.

Pax-
The ULTIMATE issue for me here is not Ladislaus’s falsification of St. Alphonsus, or even the degree of culpability which those following Jone’s theology will subjectively incur, but these:

1) Is this unnatural act intrinsically evil, and therefore always forbidden regardless of circuмstance (eg., a means to the completion of the marital act)?

2) Does the performance of this unnatural act constitute grave matter?

3) If #2 can be demonstrated in the affirmative, can Jone’s conclusion to the contrary be maintained?

These are the things I am looking into, and I will report back regardless of the findings.

Obviously, my bias -in light of the scriptural condemnation of St. Paul regarding women who forsook natural intercourse with men for unnatural- is that I will discover #2 to be affirmed, and then like you, I will be asking myself why in the world a diocesan bishop would let Jone’s conclusion to the contrary slide.

But who knows; maybe I will be found to be wrong.

1) Is this unnatural act intrinsically evil, and therefore always forbidden regardless of circuмstance (eg., a means to the completion of the marital act)?

2) Does the performance of this unnatural act constitute grave matter?

3) If #2 can be demonstrated in the affirmative, can Jone’s conclusion to the contrary be maintained?

Sean, you're conflating everything.

1) the particular moral question itself ... which I don't even care about per se, since it has no effect on me personally (I have made my arguments in defense of Jone ... and these were ignored, with you constantly reiterating the authority of St. Alphonsus)

2) even if you conclude that this activity is gravely sinful, you cannot impose your conscience on others and Catholics may safely follow the opinion of Jone

You can decide right now for any reason or no reason that you disagree with Jone.  You're entitled to do so.  But what you cannot do is to impute sin to others and tell them that they cannot follow Jone's teaching on this or any other point.

THIS^^^ ... is why I'm arguing with SeanJohnson.  It's about the question of who has the right and authority to inform consciences ... and, more importantly, who does not.

False: Even Jone imputes (venial) sin to those committing this act.