The “Mercy” Fraud

One of the most disquieting traits of our time is the tendency to look at concrete, everyday situations without a general view of what is right and wrong. This attitude is typical of children – who can't understand why the dangerous dog should be put down – and shortsighted, when they are in good faith, adults – who can't understand why a murderer should be executed -.

The right answer is always the logical, not the emotional one. The dangerous dog should be put down because the interest of safety comes before the child's desire that the dog may live; similarly, the execution of the murderer should be carried on so that elementary needs of justice and deterrence may be satisfied, even if the crying girlfriend of the assassin is on TV all day telling us what a sweet, good-as-pie, misunderstood man he is. The child, and the girlfriend, will plea for mercy. But it is false mercy that puts others in danger, and takes away from criminals the fear of their own destruction.

Logic must come before emotions. Laws – both legal and moral – can't be bent to accommodate feelings. Lex, dura lex, sed lex. During the reign of Blessed Pius IX there were hundreds of executions, in a State with a population of merely a couple of millions.

This obvious reasoning applies also to the Sacraments; the more so, because the things of God are so much more important than the things of man.

Marriage, it is said, is in bad shape. We have in front of us the suffering of so many who have made a mistake. Should we not have mercy, and spare them?


We shouldn't.

Marriage is a sacrament. Once validly contracted, it stays. Whatever suffering the marriage causes, the once chosen bond stays. If the wife goes to bed with the entire regiment, she is still the wife. If the husband become violent, or alcoholic, he is still the husband. His becoming violent afterwards is nothing to do, absolutely nothing to do with his having married before. The once validly celebrated sacrament stays. Hitler didn't stop being baptised because he became the Fuehrer, either.

If you're married, you're married. “But if he has become violent, then it means that he did not intend to marry me” must be among the most stupid things that can come out of the mouth of a human being.

The man wanted to marry, which is why he did it. He could take this decision because he could think. He was considered an adult able to make his own decisions: drive a car, enlist in the army, buy a home. All decisions which have a big influence on his life, or can be deadly to others. Still, he was considered able to make them. No one doubts this.

If a soldier rapes a girl in an occupied enemy village his superiors do not say “evidently, you never wanted to become a soldier”. He still is very well a soldier, which is why he will be court martialled. The decision, once validly taken, stays. An adult is, by definition, one who is able to make his own decisions and will answer for them. Retrospective rearrangement of a taken decision is neither here nor there. If you validly bought a house and discover the mortgage is too big of a burden, you can't just make your decision null and void because “you didn't really know what you were doing”. Was the house legally purchased? Yeah? Then it's all yours, my boy…

Therefore, any argument aiming at persuading you that the church should be “flexible”, “merciful”, or whatever else, and ignore the reality of a decision once validly taken in order to pretend the decision was never there in the first place is not only factually and logically flawed, but radically sacrilegious. It is very obvious that the current climate encourages spouses to lie about the bond they once freely chose; the recent “simplifications” go even further down that road, encouraging a narrative in which the spouse is a victim (of his or his spouse's “inexperience”) and therefore, implicitly but clearly enough, authorised to lie.

This isn't mercy, this is a fraud, and a sacrilegious one at that. God will not be fooled. At seven, a boy can theoretically send himself to hell. Imagine an adult trying to fool God about his own marriage. Congratulations, Pope Francis. You have just made the devil a huge favour.

Mrs Pious Adulterer will, we have said, insist that she could not make the choice. But ask her whether she would be ready to consider null and void the purchase agreement of her house because, ten years later, the seller discover he wasn't “mature enough” to make such a decision, and see what she answers.

The same person who would be insulted at your implication that she should be incapacitated – because obviously not able to buy or sell cars, houses, heirlooms, and the like – will eat you alive if you tell her that if she was able to make an important decision like buying a car or a house, the more so she was able to make the obviously far more momentous decision to marry; a decision taken almost always very formally, very solemnly, with great pomp and ceremony, in front of all relatives and friends, and with all the attached, well-known emphasis on this bond being “forevah and evah”, and now suddenly discarded like a bad joke.

“Me? Promise? Solemn? Oh no, I wasn't really serious, you see!”

“What do you say? Incapacitation, guardian, protecting me from myself? You b@st@rd!!!”



Posted on September 13, 2015, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 20 Comments.

  1. “He was considered an adult able to make his own decisions: drive a car, enlist in the army, buy a home.”

    No. I bought the house invalidly, because I feel extremely bad when I think about the price I agreed to pay. My feelings are much more important than some “legally binding” document I may have signed without, you know, *really* intending to! Therefore I will not pay the price agreed in your merciless legalistic “contract”.

    Also, I do not feel like working either. I will simply stay home from now on. But don’t you DARE stop paying my wages, you evil capitalist pig!

    • I agree with you. I made the mistake of selling many years ago. It’s uncharitable that I be not able to have the deal declared null and void. And I want a fast track, because my wife kicked my @ss every day in the new home.

  2. Mundabor,
    “Congratulations, Pope Francis. You have just made the devil a huge favour.”

    Ah, those lovely Italian constructions with “fare”. But I’m pretty sure, in our cold, hard northern European wastelands we do not *make* the devil a favo(u)r; we *do* him one.

    If you wanted to make the devil a favor, you would have to transform him into a favor – which might be difficult, to say the least. Or a favor would have to be something you could *make* somebody – like a sandwich. In this case you would produce or serve a favor to the devil. 🙂

    (Just for your information and benefit – no need to publish this comment. You probably knew it already anyway, and just wrote the phrase in question quickly. I mostly just found the “Italianness” extremely funny… 😉

  3. Long ago, I wondered why it was possible for Religious of both sexes, and secular priests too, to obtain dispensation from their chosen way of life, serving Christ in His Church, while divorce was impossible.
    While I accept what you have written regarding commitment to marriage, I still feel that, whatever the rule applied in the Church, the commitment of those in religious vows solemnly taken, or ordained after many years of training and discernment, should be at least as strong, and by the nature of their choice, should shine as an example to the simple, untrained layfolk who would opt for marriage and family life.
    The emptying of monasteries and convents, and numbers defecting from their priesthood since the late 1960’s, give the opposite impression; that the Church has been more rigorous with the laity than with its professional cadres when these no longer desire to continue their chosen way of life.

  4. Head’s up.

    This could be a major development. I re-blogged this Die Welt translation.

  5. I just read the above referenced article from Die Welt. It looks like Jorge’s Quickie Annulment Service may prove to be his undoing. He has created so much anger, resentment, and confusion by secretly circumventing the Curial and Vatican channels; and by doing an end-run around any Synod dissenters by making a non-issue of Communion for divorced and remarried. Finally, maybe some fed-up prelates will meet with him privately to strongly ask for his resignation. This one-man wrecking crew needs to be taken out NOW. The Pope is so out of control while he’s basking in his world popularity, there’s no telling what he will do next to the Church. Lord have mercy on us. Off topic but at the store, I saw two Newsweek special edition magazines side by side. One about Pope Francis (but with the Cross cropped out) next to one about John Lennon. How fitting since they share the same philosophies. Imagine!

  6. M, honest question here as a young Catholic with a poor catechism… If the celibacy of priests was something decided upon by man and not a command given by the Lord, is it really sacrilegious for a priest to leave the priesthood? It may be a scandal but sacrilegious? Also, is allowing a former priest to marry within the church something new since VII or was it always allowed?

    • Sacrilege is the violation of something held sacred.
      You have answered your own question.

    • A former priest cannot marry within the Church. Once a priest, no marriage is allowed.

      The Church can make someone priest who is already married (say: a former Anglican wannabe priest, because he wasn’t a priest). But once a priest, it’s no marriage.

      This is serious. Not even the Schismatics allow a priest to marry. Where did you get that is beyond me.


  7. Rorate Caeli Blog has translated an article from the L’Osservatore Romano that is very important and to me, very scary. Hope the orthodox cardinals and bishops have taken note of this article.

    Here are 3 excerpts, with the link below:

    Excerpt 1…this article was written by no other than the head of the Commission for the reform of the canonical matrimonial process, the Dean of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, Msgr. Pio Vito Pinto. …The second part of the title forthrightly states that the reforms were “desired and decided by Pope Francis”, which should help preempt any future attempts to explain away these reforms as an abuse or a misunderstanding of the Pope’s will (the typical excuse of certain quarters once a measure or reform ordered by a Pope goes terribly wrong).

    Excerpt 2…It is no longer time simply for analyses, it is time for action in order to begin that work of justice and mercy so long awaited – by re-ordering the pastoral practice and canon law, to a large extent in effect for almost three centuries

    Excerpt 3 The reforms are bluntly described as coming from ‘Our Lord’ and from the ‘Holy Spirit’, acting through Francis. The “divorced and remarried” are now redefined as forming part of “the poor” for which the Church should have a special solicitude; anyone aware of the heightened place held by “the poor” (e.g . the “preferential option for the poor”) in the post-Conciliar Magisterium should be aware of the magnitude of the shift involved here.

  8. The point is that if he can break marriage bond he can destroy societies, nations and the world, but not the Church. That means he will send a lot, I mean a lot of souls to hell including him, the most favorite disciple of Satan. Why he’s so stupid that he doesn’t even know “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and to lose his soul?” I do believe he is a communist who’s infiltrated into the Church a long time ago, carrying a top secret mission which is assigned directly from Satan himself to terminate the Catholic Church, the prime enemy. That’s why the world loves him and makes him totally blinded. He’s also so arrogant, senseless to learn that he and his master have no diabolical power strong enough to demolish the Church of Christ and very soon the final cleansing time will arrive saints and angles from Heaven will come to struck the devil, him and his minions down. Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.

%d bloggers like this: