Dear Paul:

1. Your analysis of the term, "adultery" with "abortion" or "burglary" is apples and oranges. Abortion and burglary fundamentally always evil acts. The fundamental act underlying adultery is sex, which in itself, is a moral good. Adultery, thus, is an abuse of a moral good (sex).  Abortion and burglary have no underlying act that is a moral good.

Since sex itself is a moral good, and adultery is an abuse of that moral good, adultery is a deliberative act. As such, the man in your scenario did not consent to this act, thus you cannot say he committed adultery. To say someone committed adultery is not separating the act, which is in your scenario rape, not adultery, from the culpability, which is what you wish to do.

The man in your scenario was raped, and if the woman he had sex with was an unwilling participant, then she, too, is a victim of rape. It is ridiculous to call this adultery.

2. Yes, the man could have chosen to not to have sex with the woman and thus watch his wife die. While that is a technical possibility, it is not a practical one. The Church understands acts committing under duress and coercion and does not condemn such a situation.

3. Your definition of rape is not correct. The central factor of rape is force. That force can be applied by more powerful person physically overwhelming the victim, but that is not the only definition. The force can be by a gun placed to one's head saying, cooperate or die. The person can choose to cooperate or die. They have technical choice. Rape still exists even if the rapist only threatens violence, but does not actually do violence. Rape can even apply in some situations when a aggressor manipulates a person into sex taking advantage of the victim's vulnerabilities. Or, a person can be forced to commit a sex act when the gun is pointed at someone else who will die if the act is not done. This is all rape.

I have dealt with situations like these in that I use to work in mental hospitals, including a prison psychiatric ward, in which I dealt directly with rapists, and with victims. I have also counseled with many rape victims (male and female).

If I remember, correctly, there have be actual real cases that are similar to your scenario. The man forced to do the act was not charged with rape of the woman because he was under coercion that his wife would die had he not performed the act.

4. If the woman was not a willing participant, and did not consent to do this to save the wife's life, then the man has the decision to do it anyway, or honor the woman's wishes and watch his wife die. Again, the situation is one of duress and coercion. The woman is also under the gun, as it were. At best, this is rape, not adultery, but a rape under duress in that the culpability is lacking.

Again, committing adultery is a decision of will (and act done in which both partners positively willed to do it). Acts committed "under the gun" do not normally rise to the level of mortal sin. And as mentioned, earlier, while this is an act of "material evil" it is not culpable or formal evil under these circumstances.

4b. If the woman was a willing participant, and is married, this says nothing about the man. The man is not responsible for the decisions of the woman. The woman, in this case, would be committing adultery against her husband, because she positively willed to do it.

What you need to understand is the difference between the fundamental act, and the characterization of the act. In abortion and burglary, the fundamental act and the characterization of the act are the same. They are fundamental evils, as it were, under all situations, even though the personal culpability for these acts may be mitigated.

In adultery, the fundamental act is sex, which is not in itself a moral evil. Sex is not always evil. It depends on the character of the sex that makes it evil, not the fundamental act of sex itself. While the abusive character of the sex (e.g. adultery, fornication, masturbation, etc) is a moral evil, those who commit the material evil cannot be said to have committed adultery, fornication, masturbation, etc. (they cannot be characterized to have committed those sins) when there is no consent and they are under coercion.

The Church applies this concept in several other matters. For example heresy is a grave sin. But, Protestants are not heretics, they are not committing formal heresy. Protestants are in "material heresy" which means some of their beliefs are technically heretical, but they cannot be called "heretics" because they did not positively reject Catholic teaching, but rather came to believe what they believe without knowing or being convinced of the Catholic teaching. They believe merely what they have been taught all their lives.

There is a difference between "formal sin" and "material sin". Your scenario contains material sin, but not formal sin, on the part of the victims.

If this is still not understandable, then I recommend joining our Spiritual Warfare Discussion Group, which has general forums for discussions not directly related to spiritual warfare. These Q&A Forums are not designed for discussion. This issue, however, is related to Spiritual Warfare in that the devil can exploit the issues presented here to confuse.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary