So, as I suggested before, there's always another side to every story, and not everything you see on the internet is true.
Some of the key points here.
Jorge himself publicly revealed his struggles with impurity and pornography on his own site ... in 2014, long before MHFM did.
This was much more than about Jorge disagreeing with them about COVID, as gemma claimed, based on a slander by Jorge himself, who apparently has made it his life's work to attack MHFM.
As I suspected, the Dimonds cite St. Thomas Aquinas who (as I was saying above) taught that it's not detraction to reveal sins for the public good (examples cited above).
With all that, the Dimonds should have just left this guy alone. He's obviously imbalanced and, having maybe a thousand followers, doesn't pose that much of a threat. But that part is subjective.
I think that what they did was wrong, and I disagree with his reasoning, but given the information above (that Jorge himself revealed his issues with impurity and porn years before they did) and that this was not just over a disagreement regarding COVID, it would seem that there's real calumny taking place here against the Dimond Brothers ... not only by Jorge but also by those who continue to spread around his video smearing the Dimond Brothers.
As Catholics, followers of Our Lord Jesus Christ, we are obligated to give others every possible benefit of the doubt before accusing them of grave sin, nor do we have the ability to judge them guilty of mortal sin in the internal forum. Perhaps there's confusion between grave sin (objectively grave matter) and mortal sin (based on the subject components such as full knowledge and advertence, etc.) where the soul loses sanctifying grace.
Alas, the Dimond Brothers themselves do this, and it is one of their chief failings. In this video, the presenter (whose attitudes have been formed by MHFM) also accuses Jorge of mortal sin based on certain things he did.
Neither the Dimonds nor the presenter of this video nor gemmarose are entitled to accuse anyone of "mortal" sin.
This is precisely what is meant by Pharisaism, where people are inclined to assume the worst about others (often based on flimsy evidence and not having all the facts or having listened to both sides of the story). Charity requires that we have skepticism right out of the gate. What do I not know? What's the other side of the story? Then, even armed with all the facts, why did they think this was justified? Alas, this is precisely the spirit with which the Dimond Brothers are infected. They are fond of denouncing people as "bad willed" (again, reading the internal forum), when in most cases people are confused or mistaken or ignorant, and we always out of charity give them the benefit of the doubt. In the citation above, they declare as fact that Fr. Groeschel has lost his soul. Even if he were guilty of formal heresy, then we still have no knowledge of what may have transpired between God and his soul before he passed away. Secondly, whenever the Dimonds see heresy (indeed, Fr. Groeschel made quite a few heretical pronouncements), they presume bad will and presume formal heresy. At one point, they admit that Fr. Groeschel was simply following V2 teaching. There are many, many souls who have embraced various heresies because they THINK it comes from the teaching of the Church, given that the Conciliar Church has been masquerading as the Catholic Church. If you believe that something is taught by the Church, even if you're mistaken about that fact, that is the definition of material heresy. FORMAL refers to the formal motive of faith, to WHY you believe what you believe. Unfortunately, the Dimond Brothers have also adopted the Pharisaical attitude of imputing "bad will" to others instead of assuming good will, as charity requires. Not only do they often use the adjective "bad-willed" in front of heretic, but they also throw in additional amplifiers that after a point sound childish (people are "astounding" heretics or "amazing" heretics, not just run-of-the-mill heretics). This does not mean we do not condemn heresy and condemn bad behavior (in the sense that Bergoglio uses the phrase "Who am I to judge?") but it does mean that we do not judge the internal forum. Even when someone has (perhaps by their own admission) committed mortal sin, charity requires that we look at it under the best light possible (that they were ignorant, or weak, or experiencing some temptations or conditions that we couldn't imagine). We condemn sodomy in no uncertain terms, and should punish it by law, but we also have compassion for the sodomites and give them every benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they were abused themselves and have all kinds of psychological issues or were raised poorly ... in all cases, we assume that they have not received the same graces and protections that we ourselves have had to prevent us from having ourselves become sodomites. Were it not for the grace of God, there would we have gone. That is why the saints could sincerely believe they were the worst of all sinners. They actually BELIEVED this, and it was not some pseudo-pious exercise just to say it, because of this very attitude that I outlined, that they knew their own sins but always gave every benefit of the doubt to others.
We as Traditional Catholics have received so many more graces than others have received, so we need to strive to live up to these graces and have the charity that Our Lord demands from His followers. We are not special or better than everyone else. We received the graces we have received through a completely unmerited free gift from God. We have not deserved any of it. But the more we have received, the more is expected of us. And we should acknowledge this condition of ours in fear and trembling. Most of us belong in hell. Most of us, were it not for the grace of God, are capable of being the most depraved sinners, mass murderers, serial killers, pedophiles, sodomites, and the like. There but for the grace of God go we.