Self-Approved Theologians

 

There was a time, not that long ago, when people realized that you needed an expert for answers on various topics. Hence, when you are having medical problems you go to a board certified physician. Need legal help? Go to a licensed attorney who practices in that field of law. Now, people look up symptoms on "Dr. Google," and take legal advice from eighteen year-old "influencers" on social media. The result is that many people wrongly "diagnose themselves" to their own detriment, and draw up their own legal papers, only to have them easily shot down in a court of law. Welcome to the Internet-inspired age of ultracrepidarians (i.e., people who expresses opinions on matters outside the scope of their knowledge or expertise). 

Theology is a science, indeed the "queen of the sciences," as it deals with the most important topic in the universe; God and His One True Church, outside of which no one can be saved. Like medicine and the law, theology must be handled by professionals, i.e., Church-qualified experts (theologians) who have the approbation of the Church ("approved"). Approved theologians have something no medical doctor or lawyer could ever possess; the protection of the Holy Ghost from teaching heresy in matters of Faith and/or Morals. The Church's Magisterium prevents it by censuring their opinions that are a danger to the faith. That does not mean they cannot be wrong about things the Church has not settled (e.g., Aquinas rejecting the Immaculate Conception when it was not defined and up for debate among the theologians), only that they cannot teach heresy. 

Since the Great Apostasy, when Roncalli usurped the Throne of Peter as a false pope and the hierarchy defected at Vatican II, there can be no more approved theologians unless and until the papacy is restored. Therefore, Traditionalists need to look to the teachings of the approved theologians pre-Vatican II for answers about the Faith. Unfortunately, that does not prevent certain individuals from becoming self-approved "theologians," free to spread error and evil on the Internet. Even worse, these same self-approved pseudo-theologians go so far as to accuse the genuine approved theologians from the past of having written heresy.

This post will examine three such pseudo-theologians: Fred and Bobby Dimond, the Feeneyite sedevacantists of "Most Holy Family Monastery" in New York, and Ronald L. Conte, Jr. a Vatican II sect defender of Bergoglio. The Dimonds have attacked the eminent theologian Van Noort, and Conte has attacked the great theologian Jone. In order to address their pompous and egregious calumnies, it is necessary to first establish:

1. What the Magisterium is and how it operates.

2. What, exactly, constitutes the credentials of an approved theologian according to the Church.

3. Examine the credentials of the Dimonds and Conte. 

Finally, I can (4) demonstrate the falsehood of the attacks on theologians Van Noort and Jone.

(WARNING! The attacks on Jone are of a very delicate and sensitive nature regarding marital relations. Reader discretion is strongly advised---Introibo).

The Basics

1. What is the Magisterium? According to theologian Parente, it is "the power conferred by Christ upon His Church and strengthened with the charism of infallibility, by which the teaching Church (Ecclesia docens) is constituted as the unique depository and authentic interpreter of divine revelation to be proposed authoritatively to men as the object of faith for their eternal salvation." (See Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, [1951], pg. 170). Therefore, the Church is divinely appointed to teach all necessary truths of faith to people, free from error, in order that they may attain Heaven. "Magisterium" comes from the Latin magister or "teacher." Christ told His Apostles "Go therefore, teach ye all nations..."(St. Matthew 28:19). 

The Magisterium, therefore, is expressed either solemnly or in an ordinary and universal way. This is clear from both Church history and the dogmatic decree of the Vatican Council of 1870.  The former exercise of the Church's teaching authority is called the Solemn or Extraordinary Magisterium and the latter is called the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium ("UOM"). Both are equally infallible. As the Vatican Council of 1870 dogmatically taught:

Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium, proposes for belief as having been Divinely-revealed.(Dei Filius, Emphasis mine). 

The Extraordinary Magisterium is expressed by (1) solemn definitions ex cathedra promulgated by either the Roman Pontiff or an Ecumenical Council approved by the Roman Pontiff; (2) professions of faith decreed by the Church; (3) theological censures contrary to heretical propositions. (See theologian Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, [1959], 1:174). 

The UOM is explained according to theologian Scheeben: The Criteria, or means of knowing Catholic truth may be easily gathered from the principles...nearly all set forth in the Brief Tuas Libenter, addressed by Pius IX to the Archbishop of Munich. (See A Manual of Catholic Theology 1:89). Pope Pius IX wrote, For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith. (See Tuas Libenter [1863], DZ 1683; Emphasis mine).

Canon 1323 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law further gives proof of the belief of the Church regarding the UOM and imposes on the faithful the obligation of consent. The eminent canonist Augustine writes, The universal and ordinary Magisterium consists of the entire episcopate, according to the constitution and order defined by Christ, i.e., all the bishops of the universal Church, dependently on the Roman Pontiff...What the universal and approved practice and discipline proposes as connected with faith and morals must be believed. And what the Holy Fathers and the theologians hold unanimously as a matter of faith and morals, is also de fide. (See A Commentary on Canon Law, pg.327). 

Approved theologians therefore, hold great importance in the Church. As theologian Tanquerey teaches, They [theologians] are not to be esteemed lightly no matter what the Protestants, Modernists or other adversaries have alleged against them. (Ibid, pg.180; Emphasis mine). Hence, those who deny the importance of the teachings of approved theologians are Protestants, Modernists and other enemies of the Church, not Catholics.

2. What, exactly, constitutes an approved theologian of the Church? The book by Fr. Reginald-Maria Schultes OP, De Ecclesia Catholica: Praelectiones Apologeticae [Apologetic Lectures on the Catholic Church], 2nd. ed., Paris: Lethielleux 1931, was used by priest-students studying for doctoral degrees at Pontifical Universities. Fr. Schultes himself taught at the world-renowned Angelicum University. A theologian is thus defined by him (and recognized by the Church) as "learned men who after the time of the Church Fathers scientifically taught sacred doctrine in the Church."

 The pre-Vatican II theologians were all clerics (i.e., priests and bishops) who received either a Doctorate in Sacred Theology (STD) or a Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD). The latter are known as canonists and apply the proper theological principles to the Sacred Canons to ascertain the correct meaning and application of each Canon to each unique situation. Every theologian had to defend and publish a dissertation before the Board of Examiners of a Pontifical University, and it had to bear an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat declaring the work free from all error against faith and morals.  The breadth and depth of theological knowledge enjoyed by theologians was vastly superior to both laymen and the average priest or bishop because of the excellence of their training.

Theologians are said to be "approved" at least insofar as (a) they manifest a certain eminence in doctrine in their writings and (b) display orthodoxy at least to the extent recognized by the Church that their writings are used by the faithful and the theological schools, with the knowledge of (and with no opposition from) the Magisterium of the Church.  (See, e.g,. theologian Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, IB, [1955]). The doctorate may only be dispensed by the Roman Pontiff if the cleric is found by the Vicar of Christ to be highly proficient in both Canon Law and Sacred Theology; such is the case with bishops as well (See 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 331; see also canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, [1952], 1:357-358). 

Theologians demonstrate, and do not determine Catholic doctrine. Theologians do not determine whether some doctrine is de fide or some other theological note, like "certain."  They merely demonstrate, or manifest, or give witness, that a particular doctrine is Church teaching and to what degree. They prove their assertions with convincing arguments, so that when theologians reach an objective, morally unanimous consensus, we must accept such conclusions as belonging to the Faith. According to Schultes (cited above), theologians are witnesses not only to whether a doctrine is defined, but also to its meaning. 

Fr. Fenton's The Concept of Sacred Theology makes clear that Councils, encyclicals, etc, are the raw data the theologian uses for his work. Theology is not simply quoting Church documents, any more than law is not simply quoting the Supreme Court. 

Two Common Objections Answered:

1. Theologians are not infallible. Theologian Scheeben teaches, Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be lead astray. The consent of the theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine's dictum, 'Not to resist an error is to approve of it---not to defend a truth is to reject it.' (Scheeben, Ibid, pg. 83; Emphasis mine). 

2. We only need to follow the infallible teachings of the Church. Pope Pius IX was writing a mere letter not addressed to the whole Church in Tuas Libentur. 

The Church has condemned this very idea. Condemned proposition #22 of the Syllabus of Errors, addressed to the whole Church teaches:

22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgement of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of the faith. 

Pope Pius XII condemns the idea popes need not be given assent in their teachings that are not ex cathedra: It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in these the popes do not exercise the supreme powers of their Magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent ‘He who heareth you, heareth me.’; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. (Humani Generis [1950]).

Proof of Church approbation of approved theologians.

• The many popes who taught material from the works of the theologians

• The founding, directing, and supervision of the various theological schools by the Magisterium

• Since the Council of Trent, theological works were used in seminaries which were supervised by bishops and popes

• Popes have used theologians as consultants and commissioned them to draw up Magisterial documents. Theologian Garrigou-Lagrange drafted the encyclical Humani Generis (1950) condemning modern errors, and theologian Guerard des Lauriers drafted the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus (1950) declaring the dogma of the Assumption; he later became a sedevacantist bishop consecrated by Abp. Thuc

• The writings of various theological schools have been praised and recommended by popes. Likewise, the popes and Roman Congregations have been diligent in censoring theologians who go astray. Consider that Frs. John Courtney Murray, Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Kung, and Josef Ratzinger ("Pope" Benedict XVI) were all censured in their writings and/or suspected of Modernism. These were the theologians who "hijacked" Vatican II once a false pope (John XXIII) rehabilitated them and gave them prominent roles at Vatican II. They were able to create the man-made Vatican II sect, posing as "Catholicism." 

The Magisterium further supports the theologians in the last two Ecumenical Councils

From the history of the Council of Trent and the Vatican Council of 1870, it is certain that in the theologians was recognized, as a certain criterion of the truth of faith and morals, the unanimous consent of the theologians or of the theological schools.

When the Church has not pronounced a subject closed to debate, the theologians (and theological schools) may disagree.

By argumentation, the theologians refine their arguments and clarify all sides of an issue until there is consensus, or the Magisterium takes sides. This is NOT "proof" that a theological school (or theologians in general) are "in error."

Two Theological Giants: Monsignor Gerard Van Noort and Fr. Heribert Jone

According to many sources, including online sites that are mostly accurate, Heribert Jone (1885-1967) was born as Joseph Jone. He entered the Capuchin Order in 1904 and was given the name Heribertus von Schelklingen. In the Order, he completed his philosophy and theology studies and was ordained a priest in 1910. A year later he began to study canon law at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, but interrupted it to work as a missionary to the Carolines from 1913 to 1919. After his return he continued his studies and received his doctorate in canon law in 1922. From 1924 to 1948 he taught moral theology and canon law at the religious college of the Capuchins in Munster. From 1925 he also worked as a synod judge at the marriage court of the diocese of Munster.

(See second.wiki/wiki/heribert_jone).

 He died in the Vatican II sect, but just as Tertullian is cited before his apostasy, so can we cite Jone when he was under a true pope and hierarchy making sure he did not publish heresy.

Gerard Van Noort (1861-1946) studied at Hageveld and Warmond. Following his ordination in 1884, he served as chaplain in Medemblik and Amsterdam. From 1892 to 1908 he was professor of dogmatic theology at the seminary of Warmond, and it was here that he completed his ten-volume manual of dogmatic theology, Tractatus apologetici et dogmatici (Leyden 1898–1908). It is a model of clarity and conciseness, with a judicious blend of positive and speculative theology. It is in use all over the world, and has gone through several editions. In 1908 Van Noort left seminary work to become a pastor in Amsterdam, and in 1926 he was named a canon in the cathedral chapter of Haarlem. He received a Roman doctorate honoris causa [papal approval] in 1930 and in 1934 Pius XI appointed him a domestic prelate. 

(See encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/van-noort-gerard). 

Three Theological Misfits

Fred and Bobby Dimond claim to be Benedictines, yet are sedevacantists. Having been born in the 1970s, they could not be members of the Traditional Benedictines, so they either are "self-appointed" or were made such by someone in the Vatican II sect they claim to abhor. They appeal to specious statements about their "founder" and the idea that "there must always be Benedictines." Their highest degree of education is high school. They have no formal ecclesiastical training or degrees, yet pontificate on every topic and damn to Hell anyone who disagrees. Website: vaticancatholic.com. 

Ronald L. Conte Jr declares himself a "Roman Catholic theologian and Bible translator." On his website he states:

A summary of my credentials as a lay theologian:

I am a baptized and confirmed, believing and practicing cradle Catholic, who receives the Sacraments of Confession and Communion regularly. I believe that the teachings of the holy Catholic Church, found in Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and in the teachings of the Magisterium, are the teachings of Jesus Christ. I believe what the Church teaches, and I live according to that teaching. (This credential is sorely lacking among many theologians.)

I have a bachelor’s degree in philosophy and theology from Boston College.

I reject all heresies and doctrinal errors. I continually write against heresy and doctrinal error, in order to protect the poor and weak flock of Jesus Christ from false teachers, from wolves in sheep’s clothing, who claim that their heresies and errors are actually a correct understanding of magisterial teaching...I have translated the entire Vulgate Bible from Latin into English, and I have placed that translation in the public domain. I worked for a while on the World English Bible project. I was a proof-reader for the Tweedale edition of the Vulgate (London, 2005). I produced my own edit of the Latin Vulgate Bible (2009). 

As you can see, he does not possess the educational requirements for being a theologian, and he is not a cleric. Yet, under his novel definition of "theologian," who needs any of that?

A person who writes theology, on a continuing basis, is a theologian. The term ‘theologian’ is a descriptor, not a title. The Church has never issued a formal designation of theologian, as if only those designated persons could be correctly called ‘theologian’. This statement is demonstrably wrong, as I wrote above about the qualifications of a theologian. Yet, that still doesn't matter because "God gave him the gift of being a lay theologian." 

I used to think that any intelligent and well-informed Catholic could write formal theology. But over time, I found that there are many Catholics, who despite intelligence and education in the Faith, seem unable to make a sound theological argument, or even properly evaluate the theological arguments of other persons. So I have reached the conclusion that the ability to write theology is a gift from the grace of the Holy Spirit. It is a vocation awakened by the Spirit in some, but not in others. Although theologians come from every rank among the faithful, not every member of the faithful has this calling and this gift. Ron, of course, has this "gift." Indeed he does; unfortunately for him, it's the "booby prize." He is a staunch defender of Bergoglio and Vatican II.

Website: ronconte.com.

He claims to be a "Bible translator," and sells his books on Amazon.com. He is the "translator" of the Latin Vulgate Bible to his allegedly more accurate "Catholic Domain Public Version" (CDPV). Two problems: (1)he has no advance degree in Latin and could not possibly understand how to properly translate a language in which he has (and claims) no formal education, and (2) it has no Vatican II sect Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat. Canon 825, section 1 of the 1983 Vatican II sect Code of Canon Law clearly states:

Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.

This "faithful lay theologian" is in violation of his own sect's Code of Canon Law. 

At this point, before even getting out of the starting gate, it is painfully obvious that these three self-approved "theologians" are a joke and have no right to say even one word against the theological giants pre-Vatican II. Nevertheless, their criticisms will be addressed.

The Attack on Theologian Van Noort by Fred and Bobby Dimond

 In an article entitled, The Revealing Heresies in Msgr. Van Noort's Pre-Vatican II Dogmatic Theology Manual, the theologian is attacked for his position on (what else?) "Outside the Church No Salvation." 

(See https://vaticancatholic.com/revealing-heresies-msgr-van-noorts-dogmatic-theology-manual/)

VAN NOORT REJECTS AND REDEFINES THE TWO RELATED DOGMAS: 1) OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION AND 2) WITHOUT THE CATHOLIC FAITH THERE IS NO SALVATION

Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ's Church, p. 265: “From the matter previously discussed, it should be relatively easy both to explain and to defend that slogan – often misunderstood and bitterly complained against by non-Catholics – which the fathers of the Church and the Church itself take as an axiom: ‘outside the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation.’  The axiom should be strictly understood as referring to actual union with the visible Church; but its full and correct meaning is: anyone who by his own fault lives and dies outside the Church will definitely be damned.  That the axiom is understood by the Church only with that qualification is obvious from its clear teaching that no one will go to hell without serious guilt on his part.”

Here Van Noort states that the solemnly defined dogma, Outside the Church There is No Salvation, should be understood to mean that only someone who is outside the Church “by his own fault” cannot be saved.  That is heresy and modernism.  The dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation does not teach that only someone who is outside the Church “by his own fault” will not be saved.  Rather, it teaches that all who die outside the Church are not saved, and that all who die without the Catholic faith are not saved.  The Church has proclaimed this dogma from the Chair of St. Peter approximately seven different times.  The formulation is always the same.  Not once did the Church define that only someone outside the Church “by his own fault” cannot be saved, as Van Noort declares.

What Dimond omits is Van Noort's citation to Pope Pius IX: There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, #7). 

Dimond tries to brush off Pope Pius IX by stating: The notion that all the dogmatic definitions on this matter [EENS] should be set aside, and that the entire issue hinges on non-universal, non-infallible (and misinterpreted) statements of Pope Pius IX, is absurd. There is no misinterpretation; Pope Pius IX made it clear that those who are invincibly ignorant, live honest lives by following the natural law, and ready to obey God can be saved --not by water baptism--but by "divine light and grace." God can enlighten their minds and infuse sanctifying grace bringing them within the Church before death. Moreover, all theologians interpreted his statements as saying such and he did nothing to stop them. Nor did Popes Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII.  Therefore, we have a Church that cannot teach according to Dimond. No one understood the real meaning (not even Pius IX himself and the five popes who followed). 

Van Noort even explains with two reasons why the words "by his own fault" are not usually explicitly added:

First, because the axiom is a penal sentence, and the notion of penalty by its very nature presupposes guilt. Secondly, because the axiom helps to inculcate the truth that by the ordinary decrees of God's Providence only the Church can lead one to salvation and consequently that anyone who is outside the Church, no matter how he got there, is there where salvation is per se unobtainable. (pg. 266). This was conveniently omitted by Dimond. 

Theologian Salaverri explains this truth of being outside the Church "by one's own fault" thus: But adults because of their full use of reason, who have died without Baptism and lacking at least an implicit desire of belonging to the Church, in the present order of grace, de facto, are lacking such a desire not without their own fault and are damned, as Pius IX taught. For according to the teaching of St. Thomas [Aquinas]: "This pertains to divine providence that He gives to each one the things necessary to salvation, provided on his part he does not place an obstacle. For if someone, raised in a forest or among brute animals, were to follow the lead of natural reason in the search for good and flight from evil, it must be held for certain either that God will reveal to him by an internal revelation the things necessary to believe or will send to him a preacher of the faith, as He sent Peter to Cornelius" (Acts 10). (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB, [1955], pg. 451; Emphasis mine). 

Van Noort neither rejects nor distorts/redefines "Outside the Church There is No Salvation." As to the charge Van Noort rejects the Catholic faith for "supernatural" faith, it is without merit. Dimond criticizes those like Bp. Sanborn and the late Fr. Cekada's position on ‘supernatural’ faith denies the dogma that ‘Catholic’ faith is what’s absolutely necessary for salvation. Pure ignorance from Dimond. The Catholic Faith alone has the property of supernaturality. According to theologian Rivas, The act of faith is supernatural...The Pelagians, by denying internal grace for salvific acts, thereby deny the supernaturality of the Act of Faith. (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa IIB, pg. 303). The only act of faith that is supernatural is an act of Catholic Faith, for faith comes from God.

Suffice it to say, Dimond is clueless and Van Noort is brilliantly Catholic! I will not address all the other alleged heresies of Van Noort, as it is clear his opponent doesn't understand the topics upon which he writes.

The Attack on Theologian Jone by Conte

Conte objects to a book by one Christopher West who cites Jone's Moral Theology, a short one-volume reference. (See ronconte.com/2018/06/05/what-heribert-jone-wrote-in-moral-theology/). 

Conte writes:

“To cite another example, Fr. Heribert Jone wrote in his highly regarded 1956 book Moral Theology: ‘Excluding the sodomitic intention [that is, the intention to ejaculate] it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in a rectal manner with the intention of consummating it naturally’ (section 757).” [West, p. 227]

West gets it correct, but Conte excoriates Jone thus:

There are many things wrong with that statement. How can a husband not have a “sodomitic intention” when he is in fact committing sodomy? The bare assertion that “it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin” contradicts the description of the act itself as “intercourse begun in a rectal manner”. That is a description of sodomy. And Jone provides no theological argument to prove otherwise. Then, as he continues to discuss the act in question, he calls it “sodimitical commerce” and, repeatedly, “the sin”. A sodomitical sin that Jone approves, as if it were somehow moral.

1. The husband has no intention of sodomy if he only wants foreplay and to end with natural intercourse

2. It is a "bare assertion" because it is a reference manual checked by the Magisterium, it is not a full dissertation where elaborate arguments are made.

3. This is the opinion of one theologian on a matter the Church has not decided. You may disagree, but it is not "heretical" or evil, unless the Church passes final judgement against the opinion in question. The manual, originally written under the pontificate of Pope Pius XI, continued to be approved when reprinted under Pope Pius XII, and even in 1961 when there was a hierarchy with Ordinary Jurisdiction.

Conte continues his attack:

However, Jone followed that sentence with this assertion, which West omits:

“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.]

So Jone’s actual theological position is that the husband may use his wife’s posterior for a type of “foreplay”, to prepare himself for natural marital relations, but she is morally obligated to resist and “to prevent the sin”. And, according to Jone, she would sin gravely if she consented interiorly to any pleasure that might accompany the sodomitical act. Jone thinks that this particular sexual act (anal foreplay absent male climax) is moral for the husband, but immoral for the wife! 

Here, Jone switches to discussing not foreplay, but actual sodomy. Conte doesn't understand (no surprise) and thinks Jone is contradicting himself, when he is talking about another matter, closely related. As theologians McHugh and Callan teach, non-consummated venereal acts "are lawful per se when they are used only as accessories to the act of marriage or as a means to foster and preserve conjugal love, for the acts are meant by God to serve the purposes mentioned...There is mortal sin when these acts are not referred to the lawful conjugal act..." (See Moral Theology, [1930], 2:599). 

Yet this pseudo-educated, self-approved theologian would have you go out and buy his book The Catholic Marriage Bed at Amazon.com for the "correct answers" to sexual morality. His book possesses no approbation from the Vatican II sect he serves. I can only imagine how his "Bible" --also done without approval of his sect or personal expertise--is an insult to Sacred Scripture and can lead people in his sect further astray. 

Conclusion

I have stated many times that I am not a theologian, nor have I ever claimed to be such. I'm merely a layman sharing what I learned from my time with a real canonist (Fr. DePauw) and trying to make my best Catholic way I can in this time of Great Apostasy. If I can show what real theologians have taught, and help others along the way as God's unworthy instrument, all the time I spend writing will have been worth it. My identity is unimportant and I have never tried to make a dime off my writing. 

When people filled with hubris and devoid of credentials start calling themselves "theologians" or "teaching" as if they were such, run away as fast as you can. You get Feeneyites and Vatican II sect members selling you heresy while attacking the genuine theologians of the past. Approved theologians like Van Noort and Jone have the backing of the One True Church. Self-approved theologians have the backing of themselves--and in many cases, the forces of Hell.