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 nowhere close to being the actual "ULTIMATE issue".  If it is "for [you]" as you claim, then I think that you have an unnatural obsessed with anal intercourse.  Why do you care so much?  Let individual penitents work these things out with their own Confessor.  What I care about is your trashing of Jone and your claim that he must be rejected under pain of grave sin on this issue.

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

I’ll take this one.  My response to the penitent would be as follows:
“Praised be God for making a good confession.
As regards the matter of unnatural acts within the rendering of the marital debt, they are never permitted.  Contravening the natural law, they are intrinsically evil, and therefore can never be committed regardless of circuмstance, or as a means to an end.
We have a direct condemnation of the act in question in Scripture, when St. Paul repudiated those women for giving up natural intercourse, and practicing unnatural intercourse.
In your case, because you did not understand such acts constitute grave matter, your sin is venial.
But sodomy is always serious matter (and contrary to the restrictive definition you relied upon, all unnatural sex acts constitute sodomy, which allows for different species and degrees, but remains sodomy nonetheless).
In this regard, I would urge you not to commit this act again, and to form a firm purpose of amendment in this regard, since even the author you relied upon acknowledges it to be at least venial).
Go in peace; your sins are forgiven.”

You may have been taught that Alphonsus was a probabilist before he adopted aequiprobabilism, unless you are suggesting BW doesn’t know what he is talking about.

... you are absolutely and utterly incompetent to discuss theology.  This is a reference to whether or not the wife can participate in perfect sodomy and has nothing to do with whether the act of imperfect sodomy is venial on the part of the husband.  It's the same mistake that Conte ignorantly stumbles on, claiming it's a self-contradicton in Jone when it's really  his own inability to understand it.