"Very briefly, then, I would argue that the following is the most likely scenario in which the presumption that only venial sin is involved may be reasonably justified:
(end quote) I scarcely know where to begin, but here goes.
- Dr. John Lamont, in his own commentary published on Rorate Caeli, points out that the so-called "repentant" spouse is indeed acting voluntarily. The difficulties of his/her choice do not compromise their free will. The so-called "repentant" spouse isn't all that repentant.
- When evaluating the morality of a given act, the FIRST consideration must be to the nature of the act itself. If the act is inherently immoral, all other considerations are moot.
- Those of us who are old enough remember from our catechism that ALL sins against the 6th commandment are mortal. Temptations to the same are not mortal as they only become sin when consent is given. If the so-called "innocent spouse" acquiesces to the meanie, he/she still gives consent.
- As an aside, one might wonder just what the "innocent spouse" would gain in such a scenario. If the obdurate one threatens to leave the family if he/she is not gratified, what does that say about their own devotion to the children? What kind of parent would he/she really be? What kind of "family setting" is it when one spouse is essentially blackmailing the other spouse to commit mortal sin and damn their soul to hell?
- So far the conversation has been about those "rare, difficult" cases. Well, remember the 1930 Lambeth Conference? The Anglicans allowed for contraception only "for special cases". We know how that turned out, don't we? That's the plan here: allow sacrilege for those "hard" cases, and the camel's nose will be under the tent, never to be removed.
There are a number of folks who can't deal with the increasingly obvious fact that we have a pope who is not taking seriously his God-given charge to safeguard the Deposit of Faith. In fact, many of his words and actions seem designed to undermine it. Dr. Mirus seems to be of that mindset.
By the way - I'd also urge you to read the commentary from Robert Royal.
Now a word about comments. Most folks know that I entertain most comments, provided they are respectful and honor the Church. I will not entertain comments from those who won't entertain comments on their own sites, or who charge fees for the "privilege" of commenting.