This.

But then on the flip side, the "Pharisacical attitudes" card is often played to defend oneself from warranted (and sometimes necessary) criticism (hopefully to the effect of correcting the sinner/error). It is a constant balancing act - knowing when to speak and when to remain silent. Imagine John the Baptist just shuffling his feet staring the ground and saying "don't judge" instead of marching up to Herod and telling him, "It is not lawful for you to take your brothers wife." What I have noticed most of all over the YEARS of reading on this forum is the abject snowflakery of 99% of trads - no spine, no humility, just the pretense of "wisdom". I think a good portion of this thread shows that.

Right, and I talked about it too.  As with almost everything, as St. Augustine said virtus in medio stat, that virtue (usually) lies in the middle.  We have the Bergoglio distortion of "Who am I to judge?" ... which is that there is no objective right or wrong, that it's all relative.  But then the opposite extreme is judging the individual's internal forum, considering him "scuм".  That latter manifests itself more in one's attitude.  If you see a sodomite and you're thinking "what a filthy scuм", you're that's a warning sign that you're slipping into the latter territory.  Yes, what he's DOING may undoubtedly be filthy and scuмmy, but we always have to keep in mind the St. Augustine saying of "there but for the grace of God go I".  Would I be less scuмmy if I had been in his shoes?  Probably not.  Then of course, there's a different level of opposition where you oppose the MILITANT types, i.e. those who promote the liceity of their behavior in principle, vs. those are just sinners.

So, absolutely, it's a very difficult balance to maintain, since at times it's very difficult to distinguish and to extricate the sin from the sinner, the depravity of the actual behavior from a judgment of the internal forum.

Also, internal forum isn't just a person's "intention", since even the intention can be obvious just from the external forum.  Someone commits adultery or sodomy.  Intention is very clear ... personal grafitification of the emotional and/or physical variety.  That notion of "intention" is often conflated with that properly "internal forum" consideration that's in the inner sanctum of the soul, at the very deepest layer of free will that we ourselves often cannot discern and only God knows and can objectively judge.

That's actually the absurdity of Bergoglio's Amoris Laetitia, here he says you can discern your own internal forum to decide whether adultery is wrong.  AT BEST you MIGHT be able to do some discernment about the degree of sinfulness regarding some of yoru PAST actions, where maybe you truly were ignorant or something.  Even then, God might judge that your ignorance was culpable since there was a leve at which you didn't really want to know and therefore did not try too hard to find out.  At that level, we ourselves do not generally know, and only God does and will reveal it to us at our particular judgment.  But that Bergoglio said that people could work with their confessors to internal-forum discern whether they could CONTINUE in the current objectively-sinful activity, it's ridiculous.  At this point, if you're even "discerning", it's clear than that you KNOW by now that it's objectively sinful.  What they're really claiming is ... you're deciding whether objective rules of morality apply in your own situation because "it's just too hard" or "it's OK since I really love this person".  They're using it to bend the objective rules of morality and not actually to assess their degree of culpability.

Seems like it was your nerve that was struck.

Lol no. I just want your retardation to stop. Seemed to work, thank God.

I am not the OP.

I am the other guy commenting.

Laddy and Jen. Saying "mind your own business" is a distraction.

He's judging mostly of what COMES OUT OF PEOPLE'S MOUTHS.

So when people say things which excuse bad behavior, that IS objectively scandalous.

So I revert to what I said earlier.

IF YOU CANNOT SAY SOMETHING HELPFUL, SHUT YOUR MOUTH.

I'm curious....what is your educational background? Have you studied philosophy, history, theology, and Latin?  What social class do you parents belong to?

"Yeah bro you are fine you're not starving to death."
"You have basic literacy not like some nigger in africa"
"Are you grateful"
"Instead of addressing the problems with trads I will just say you are wallowing in self-pity"
"I do feel compassion for you but you are a disgusting brat who needs to grow up
"Just use the internet bro and get professional (Jєωιѕн) help)"
"You might be a troll or agent"

From your contradictory post I would say that you are the troll or agent.

I'm neither a troll nor an agent.
Your attempted straw-manning is sub par even for the internet.
Since when is compassion separated from truth telling?  

Yes, it is definitively denigration. He doesn't claim to be pope, he doesn't do anything a pope does. He doesn't claim ordinary jurisdiction. People just denigrate him because they don't like some decisions he has made. Mistaken conclusions don't warrant denigration. The mature Catholic will say he is mistaken, and show why.

Alternatively, trad clerics (+Sanborn included) should not refuse the Sacraments to those faithful who do not submit to their opinions

The OP sounds lonely. He may think finding the right woman will solve his problem, which it will not. He needs men friends. No woman is going to trust a man who does not have friends who are men. Hanging around with other men may help him adjust so he does not appear whiny to others.

Yes, it is definitively denigration. He doesn't claim to be pope, he doesn't do anything a pope does. He doesn't claim ordinary jurisdiction. People just denigrate him because they don't like some decisions he has made. Mistaken conclusions don't warrant denigration. The mature Catholic will say he is mistaken, and show why.

He may not claim it but by Binding people by pain of sin to certain opinions of his he acts like it.