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.
I don't need no stinking moral theologist (I have my Guardian Angel to tell me what is right and wrong.)
If what Heribert Jone proposes is not sodomy and grave sin, then it wouldn't be sodomy and grave sin to "start the act" with an arbitrary person other than the wife, either. It is obvious that Jone is 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.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?
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.
#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.
//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.//I understand that. I am leading him down a path which will arrive at the mortal/venial issue.
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.
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.
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.
Answer this question, SeanJohnson.I’ll take this one. My response to the penitent would be as follows:
If you were a Confessor and it came out that some penitent was doing this thing under discussion, and he stated that he read in Jone that it could be done without grave sin, would you refuse him absolution unless he resolved to not do this again?
This here is the key to our disagreement.
See, for myself, even if I personally felt that this constituted grave sin, I would not impose that on someone else's conscience over and above the moral theology experts whose opinion has received broad Church approval.
This is the actual question here, Johnson, what gives YOU the right to impose YOUR conscience on anyone else?
This attitude of yours is in fact THE most pernicious fruit of R&R, and you're playing this out in front of our eyes as if in a slow-motion trainwreck.
So to answer the question of this thread:Even Jone imputed (venial) sin to those who performed this intrinsically evil, unnatural (and condemned in scripture) act.
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.
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.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.
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-
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?
Thank you for the research. We would all agree the topic is repugnant but the issue of varying moral opinions is important.
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.
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
Sean, you're conflating everything.Whoops, meant to reply to this post, but Lad keeps me coming so fast, it actually selected the latter one.
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.
I note you continue to repent of your falsification of St. Alphonsus as a probabilist.
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.I see you are now broadening the range of your lies, graduating from the falsification of St. Alphonsus, to the falsification of my own position, and all to keep from admitting you are wrong.
Anyway, this is false: Even Jone imputed sin (venial) to those who commit this act.
False: Even Jone imputes (venial) sin to those committing this act.
I'm not even sure what this sentence means, but I was taught that St. Alphonsus taught probabilism by none other than Bishop Williamson himself at STAS. Since you remain in contact with him, then I suggest that you correct him if you think he is wrong. St. Alphonsus' aequiprobabilism is nothing more than a modification of probabilism to prevent its abuse into laxism, and yet you imply that it's the same things a probabiliorism, which it is not.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.
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.”
Lie. He said nothing of the sort. He just said it wasn't grave. It was I who opined later that it's probably at least a venial sin in most cases.Jone:
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.
Jone:
“Positive co-operation on the part of the wife in sodomitical commerce is never lawful, hence, she must at least offer internal resistance. However, she may remain externally passive, provided she has endeavored to prevent the sin. She thus applies the principle of double effect and permits the sin to avert the danger of a very grave evil which cannot otherwise be averted; it remain unlawful for her to give her consent to any concomitant pleasure.” [Jone, Moral Theology, n. 757.]
:facepalm: ... 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.Lad-