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.

I think it depends on how you respond to the suffering you’ve endured. Some people develop victim mentality, others learn and grow.

Unless some opinion of theirs has been defined by the Church, they are not permitted to withhold the Sacraments from the faithful who ask for them.  Given their lack of jurisdiction, and their role as emergency dispensers of the Sacraments, it's only the faithful requesting the Sacraments that permit them to do so at all, so they're not in any position to deny them except in the case of something obvious that's clearly defined by the Church, and not just something they decided is certain due to their own reasoning.

They may opine on the matter, but that's it.  "I believe that +Thuc-line bishops and priests are not valid.  If you go there, you're putting your soul in grave danger.  Here's the reasoning behind why I think that."  If they layman says, "thanks for the advice, but I don't agee" and they ask for the Sacraments, then the priest must provide them.  Bishops have no more authority than priests, but are there as emergency dispensers of the Sacraments that priests cannot provid ... Holy Orders and confirmation.  I wish the Traditonal bishops would stop carrying around their croziers and sitting on thrones.  They need to drop that and use a faldstool during Mass.

Op doesn't seem to be doing "what he can", though. Op seems to want to make everything external to himself; all his problems are from other people. His Faith also seems to consist mainly of externals too; other Catholics should do x, y, & z or I can't be at peace.
 
It's one of the primary lessons to be taken from the story of Adam and Eve. Even though their external situation was perfect, they still screwed it up. And every single one of us would do the same. If you put me in the Garden, I would've fallen, so would you. If you had all the things that you complain about; a perfect upbringing, surrounded by perfect people, a perfect society, had a 12 year old, white, submissive, virgin slave girl, etc., you'd still mess it up and find something to complain about. If I had all the things that I think would make my life perfect, I'd screw it up too. It can be hard to face, but it is true and the truth really does set a person free. Our main problem is internal, it's ourselves.

The same with the Faith. It seems at times that trads fall into the same basic errors as the Pharisees; degrade the Faith into a list of rules and external practices and give little heed to the inward man. The sad truth is that even if everything was restored in the Church, the way we talk about so often here, we'd still screw it up and find something to complain about. I often wonder now if that isn't maybe why the present situation exists; so that we may have a chance to see.

Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there. For lo, the kingdom of God is within you.
[Luke 17:21]

Anon #1 and Anon #2 want to complain about their circuмstances and feel justified in their indignation, not take good spiritual advice from older more seasoned men.

That’s the jist of it. They will only entertain those that agree with them.

Yeah, unfortunately, there's something that got under his skin, undoubtedly calling out a lack of charity in judging the internal forum, and for pointing how it is that the saints were able to consider themselves the greatest of sinners, i.e. how they sincerely believed it to be true.

Every since then he's been lashing out ... perhaps something goaded his conscience.  When that happens, there's usually a decision point, where you either double down or you start to think whether or not some adjustment might be needed.

His tone reminds me an awful lot of when Our Lord accused the Pharisees, and they responded with increased hatred.

The myth that struggle or suffering builds character is another boomerism that needs to die. Nine times out of ten, suffering just makes people worse because it gives them an excuse to wound collect and behave like shitheads. "I was raped as a kid, that's why I'm an asshole!"