Ladislaus,

Stop with this playing Moral theologist garbage already, all you are doing is swimming in excrement. You are not a priest, get over it.

Dude, I’m agreeing with you.  

No one is safe with cloaca coitus. Do it enough and you're likely to croak. The road to Vatican II was paved with perfectly approved theologians. When it comes to stuff like sex, use common sense if you still have it.

No one is safe with cloaca coitus. Do it enough and you're likely to croak. The road to Vatican II was paved with perfectly approved theologians. When it comes to stuff like sex, use common sense if you still have it.

The moral theology manuals are meant for priests to study and use in the confessional, not from the pulpit. It is not meant for a layman to teach, and it is not meant for anyone to teach it from the pulpit (=Cathinfo).

I'm not attacking anyone, for I have not read one thing written here about sodomy one way or the other. What I told you was that you should have chosen another subject other than sodomy to prove your point. I think that 95% of the bad reactions to this thread are towards a discussion on sodomy, intercourse with a sewer pipe.

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.