What Ever Happened to the Medicine of Mercy?

From the vestibule of the "schismatic" SSPX chapel in New Plymouth, Idaho.

I am seeing on social media the sentiment expressed that the latest motu proprio was a just, fitting and appropriate comeuppance for traditionalists.  Those mean, nasty, rotten, Vatican-II-hating trads, leading unsuspecting normal Catholics into schism and disobedience, and probably also kicking puppies and eating kindergarteners for breakfast!  I see even some traditionalists (or at least some professing to be traditionalists) saying, look, we had this coming.  We deserve to get smacked around because we are so mean and uncharitable.  Thank you, sir, may I please have another.

This is even assuming -- which I do not assume -- that the Pope has the authority to do what he has done.  Jesus Christ founded the Church as a monarchy, a family with a father at its head, not as a tyranny.  (The redoubtable Fr. Hunwicke explains brilliantly why Traditiones custodes is not binding, here and especially here.)  The question here is: whatever happened to the mercy and compassion that were supposed to be the hallmarks of the Church in the post-conciliar age toward those who are in, or who are supposed to be in, error?  Whatever happened to the mercy and compassion, pursuant to which canonical penalties have become a thing of the past in the quest to draw malefactors gently back into the fold?  Consider the words of John XXIII at the opening of the Council on October 11, 1962:

The Church has always opposed these errors.  Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity.  Nowadays, however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity.  She considers that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations....[T]he Catholic Church, raising the Torch of religious truth by means of this Ecumenical Council, desires to show herself to be the loving mother of all, benign, patient, full of mercy and goodness toward the brethren who are separated from her.

Now, the Vatican II fanboys consider traditionalists to be separated from the Church, or on the verge of being separated from the Church.  If that were true, it would seem to indicate that traditionalists are therefore in need of the Medicine of Mercy.  But it would appear rather that all that Medicine of Mercy stuff held true only as long as the revolutionaries within the Church were the ones being condemned.  It became a whole different ball game once they and their fellow travelers and tools took over the league.  When Archbishop Lefebvre, for example, ordained priests after the purported suppression of his Society of St. Pius X, and then later consecrated bishops against a papal mandate, surely those were occasions to deploy the Medicine of Mercy.  But no: it turns out that the Medicine of Mercy crowd are actually huge fans of canonical penalties, ruthlessly applied -- to their opponents.  Even the threat of canonical penalties turns out to be a very handy political weapon against those who do not want to sign on to the revolution within the Church.  Meanwhile, there is to be no Medicine of Mercy for those who are looted, pillaged and despoiled by even the open pervs, crooks and charlatans who are in lockstep with the revolution.

Traditionalists, being humans, have warts like anyone else.  We are sinners.  We are annoying.  We overindulge our passions and appetites.  We let our anger and hurt get the better of us.  We fight amongst ourselves.  There are even those among us who stray into error of various sorts -- making us indistinguishable from our fellow Catholics in the mainstream, which also includes those who reject all sorts of Church teachings, from the Real Presence to the evils of contraceptives.  

But it takes a real hard-heartedness to consider the Howitzer of Traditiones custodes as being in any way a proportionate response to the flea that is the excesses of traditionalists.