I met the former Anglican bishop of Gloucester Peter Ball once when he was the Bishop of Lewes, I thought he was a faux. He is now 82 and was sentenced to prison today, it is quite possible that he will die in prison.
According to contemporary Catholic teaching, the theory of 'Gradualism', would suggest that we looked at the good that Peter Ball did, at his pleasant nature, his beguiling qualities, his holiness, his learning. Classical Catholic theology, which perhaps is less 'merciful' would say he was a pervert, and in fact what appeared good merely added to his sinfulness, and made him even more of a danger, more attractive, more of a source of corruption, that in fact his 'virtue' rather than being in any sense a mitigation of his vice only added it, by making him more dangerous.
It is significant that St Paul in his lists of sinners doesn't ever introduce mitigating factors, neither does the Lord. A sinner is simply a sinner, the Pharisees might be white washed but they are still 'tombs full of dead men's bones', a source of corruption. (Matt 23:27). Someone in serious sin is sinner, which is what the classic doctrine on Mortal Sin teaches. God always extends his mercy but it is necessary for a man to accept it, and to accept it when it is offered, lest like the foolish virgins the door is slammed closed behind them or like the towns the disciples were sent to, the time of mercy ended when or if the dust was shaken from their feet.
Mortal sin, classically, is easily recognised and easily avoided, either because it is directly contrary to the Natural Law or because it is positively condemned in scripture. I think introduction of an intermediate category of 'Grave Sin' is actually helpful. Mortal Sin does what the label says on the tin, it kills our relationship with God. Venial sin is more difficult to shake off, it leaves us damaged and weakened but it does not separate us from God, though it damages that relationship.
Ultimately Sin is not the main concern of scripture but Conversion or Repentance is, hence the woman caught in adultery is merely sent away to sin no more. The terrible problem with the Gradualist approach, which seems to be adopted by many of the Synod Fathers blinds us, the Church to the terrible nature and consequences of sin. It also blinds the Church to the importance of mission, because one important aspect of it is to point out sin, especially if we are to avoid hypocrisy within the Church, we can't purify the Church of sin if are blind to it, if we refuse to judge.
I wonder if Gradualism itself was the cause of the cover-up of child abuse, we tried to see the good and ignored the evil men did. We overlooked heresy because we saw niceness.