There are two specific issues with regard to the teaching of Fr. Jone:

1)      -Is it the more probable opinion, generally known and estimated as such among Catholic theologians, that unnatural intercourse between husband and wife properly defined as sodomy?

2)      -Is it the more probable opinion, generally known and estimated as such among Catholic theologians, that unnatural intercourse between husband and wife does not admit of parvity of matter (i.e., is always grave matter, leaving the matter of knowledge and consent aside)?

If the answer to either of these questions could be demonstrated in the affirmative, would a Catholic who attacks the obscure opinions of Fr. Jone (and moreover, attacks those who promote his less probable opinions) fail in Catholic charity?

Not according to the papal magisterium!

“On 26 June 1680 the Holy Office, under the presidency of Innocent XI, issued, in connection with the teaching of Thyrsus Gonzalez, S.J., a Decree of which the authentic text was published 19 April 1902, by the Secretary of the Holy Office. So much controversy has recently arisen in regard to the value of decree, that it is advantageous to quote the whole text: "A report having been made by Father Laurea of the contents of a letter directed by Father Thyrsus Gonzalez, S.J., to Our Most Holy Lord; the Most Eminent Lords said that the Secretary of State must write to the Apostolic Nuncio of the Spains [directing him] to signify to the said Father Thyrsus that His Holiness, having received his letter favourably, and having read it with approval, has commanded that he [Thyrsus] shall freely and fearlessly preach, teach, and defend with his pen the more probable opinion, and also manfully attack the opinion of those who assert that in a conflict of a less probable opinion with a more probable, known and estimated as such, it is allowed to follow the less probable; and to inform him that whatever he does and writes on behalf of the more probable opinion will be pleasing to His Holiness. - Let it be enjoined upon the Father General of the Society of Jesus, as by order [de ordine] of His Holiness, not only to permit the Fathers of the Society to write in favour of the more probable opinion and to attack the opinion of those who assert that in a conflict of a less probable opinion with a more probable, known and estimated as such, it is allowed to follow the less probable- but also to write to all the Universities of the Society [informing them] that it is the mind of His Holiness that whosoever chooses may freely write in favour of the more probable opinion, and may attack the aforesaid contrary [opinion]; and to order them to submit entirely to the command of His Holiness."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aequiprobabilism

In due course, we will establish that:

-In fact, Fr. Jone's restrictive definition of sodomy is a minority and obscure (almost novel) opinion;

-That all the most eminent moralists (including St. Alphonsus, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and others) consider unnatural sex acts between spouses grave matter;

-That even the best and most reputable modern pre-conciliar moralists (e.g., Prummer, et al) define sodomy in the traditional way (i.e., unnatural sex acts);

-That it is false to ascribe to St. Alphonsus the notion that he would permit Catholics to follow any teaching, however obscure, so long as it is contained in an approved manual (i.e., This is probabilism, whereas St. Alphonsus was aequiprobabilist).

We will ultimately conclude that Jone's moral theology on the matter of spousal sodomy, insofar as he ascribes to unnatural sex acts parvity of matter, presents a danger to Catholics who, through human weakness, will often excuse themselves when parvity of matter is deduced (particularly in sɛҳuąƖ matters).

We will not get into the issue of the value and/or confidence Fr. Jone's Imprimatur from an American bishop in 1961 ought to instill in Catholics.  We will simply state that an Imprimatur is a decision of a diocesan bishop, not the Pope or Church, and as such, is only as reliable as the particular bishop.

As Fr. Juan Carlos Iscara once declared in Liturgy class, "If you think I'm going to accept a (controversial) teaching from some book just because it has the Imprimatur of an American bishop in 1930, you must be crazy."

Fr. Jone should not be consulted, and utterly rejected.

Let's clearly separate the concerns:

1) Probabilism

2) Jone's position on this issue.

My intent has always been with regard to the probabilism and not the specific subject here under consideration.

St. Alphonsus taught probabilism, that one can in fact without sin follow even a less probable opinion.

You attacked me for going against St. Alphonsus' teaching on a particular subject by in fact going against St. Alphonsus (regarding probabilism).

I never said anyone had to agree with Jone.  All I said was that, based on the teaching of St. Alphonsus, we cannot impute sin to someone who does in fact adhere to the opinion of Jone ... with the qualification that Jone was merely summarizing the majority opinions on any given matter prevalent in his day.

I happened to agree with the rationale behind Jone's position, that this was not GRAVE sin under the conditions stipulated in Jone.  I did not say it was not sinful, and I agreed that it was a rather disgusting activity.  I simply agreed that it was not MORTAL sin given Jone's conditions.

I don't need no stinking moral theologist (I have my Guardian Angel to tell me what is right and wrong.)

Oh, come on now.  What are you, some kind of charismatic Prot who thinks he has a direct pipeline to God?  We Catholics form our consciences based on the teaching of the Church and not from our own private lights and inspirations.  You're a half step away from promoting the very principles behind Religious Liberty.

Oh, come on now.  What are you, some kind of charismatic Prot who thinks he has a direct pipeline to God?  We Catholics form our consciences based on the teaching of the Church and not from our own private lights and inspirations.  You're a half step away from promoting the very principles behind Religious Liberty.

The truth is  that I don't give a damn about what a "moral theologian" has to say about a disgusting subject such as sodomy. I don't even discuss the subject. To me it is like discussing how to cook worms. I do not even consider eating worms so why should I discuss it or seek guidance on it?   

#1) Nobody ever stated that you HAD to accept the opinion.  All I ever said is that one CAN accept the opinion (based on St. Alponsus' probabilism).

#2) You are free to reject Jone.  You are not free to impute sin to those who do not agree with your rejection of Jone.

That has been my argument with you from the get-go.  I posted a link to Jone in the Library.  It's a very valuable resource that people can download for free in case they have questions regarding moral theology.  You immediately launched into trashing Jone and imputing sin to those who would follow him.  That's where you crossed the line.  You, SeanJohnson, are not the issuer or withholder of imprimaturs.  If the Church taught, "this may be published," then it is not for you to declare that it may not be published.  You are responsible for forming your own conscience, but you are in no position to impose your conscience on others.  You've done this same kind of thing on other issues, such as imputing sin to those who would not observe the Holy Days that had been cancelled by those whom you consider to be the legitimate hierarchy ... thereby arrogating to yourself an authority that you would deny to the Catholic hierarchy.

PS ... I thought this thread had died a long time ago, but you appear to have a rather unhealthy obsession with this issue.

BS: St. Alphonsus rejected probabilism, and according to the aequiprobabilism of St. Alphonsus, one is not permitted to follow the less safe course (i.e., the minority opinion); see above.

PS: As for this thread, I did not resurrect it, but do note that you posted in it 4 more times before I discovered you were reviving it with your unhealthy obsession.

//4) As for marital sodomy, can you explain how an intrinsically evil act becomes good if completed?  Jone and Merkelbach can't, and neither can anyone else.//

Not taking a position, but that's not what he's arguing.  He's arguing venial vs mortal, not evil vs good.  I don't think I agree with the more liberal view here, but that's still not what he's saying.

I understand that.  I am leading him down a path which will arrive at the mortal/venial issue.

OK fair enough.  I just think its important to represent people fairly.  

Me too, and a good start would be representing St. Alphonsus as an aequiprobabilist. and not a probabilist, as Laxislaus seems to falsely insist upon.