I'm not sure if you're employing some kind of reductio ad absurdum rhetorical device here or not, but assuming the latter: How far do you take it? Why not be "merciful" to practitioners of every mortal sin and keep silent so that they can wallow in their sodomy, fornication, self-abuse and pornography in blissful ignorance of the gravity of their sins?
Why not? Because sin objectively offends God and it is the duty of every Catholic to admonish the sinner, instruct the ignorant, and counsel the doubtful. What madness it is to leave the sinner and the doubter ignorant in the hopes that that ignorance will ameliorate his guilt when by so doing we bring down grave guilt upon ourselves for uncharitably and unmercifully leaving our neighbor ignorant!
These spiritual works of mercy are indeed obligatory,
but only when you can reasonably expect something good will come of it, or when you are confronted, asked etc., and depending on your situation, position or office. If you are sure nothing will be accomplished and that they will not change, and if it isn't your place to do or say anything about it, you are not obliged to do anything and it would actually be a bad thing because you may make things worse.
In this case, Matthew 7:6 applies:
"Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you."So sin
always offends God, even if the sinner may not be guilty (not fulfil the conditions) and not aware he is committing sin?
Like i said, i just wonder how can passages like Matthew 15:14 can be reconciled with the conditions for sin to take place and be imputed to someone. Matthew 15:14 makes it seem people will go to Hell even if they aren't obstinate, pertinacious, and even if they don't have the knowledge that what they're doing is sinful, but Catholic teaching plainly teaches such conditions must be present for sin to exist at all.
I mean there are just so many passages in the Bible, the Saints, Popes before Vatican 2 etc. all saying over and over again how truth must be kept intact and every error condemned and exposed, the orthodoxy of the Faith, etc. etc.
because if not, the faithful will be infected and will be led to Hell.But if the faithful are led astray by the very people they should follow and obey, and they don't know any better since none of them are theologians or expected to be theologians and until recent times the majority couldn't even read, how can they be held responsible? Why is this so dangerous and pressing if they're clueless and have not evil will?
With the case of any heresiarch, it was clear they were openly departing from the teaching and unity of the Church, and the countries and states were Catholic, so you really had no excuse to say "Oh I'm just following my pastor!" and besides they were condemned and denounced from the start, but in the situation we are living in right now, where the would-be Popes themselves and all the would-be Hierarchy has taken the role of Heresiarch, how can you hold anyone responsible?