1.) How would anyone of us know exactly what you have read and comprehended since the 1960's?
2.) You can find a brief amount of the material here: https://www.sjmfatimacrusade.com/articles

The real difference between Benedict and Bergoglio is the difference between material heresy and formal heresy.

ii)

"May have been well intentioned"? ?  The facts say otherwise...

+Benedict was one of the biggest supporters of V2.  He was there while it happened.
+Benedict proclaimed gladly that V2 was anti-Syllabus of errors.  He said it was anti-Trent.
+Benedict was the head of the "Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith" while +JPII promoted his heretical-ecuмenical religious ceremonies.
+Benedict was the head of the "Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith" while +JPII promoted the immoral "Theology of the Body"
+Benedict was the head of the "Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith" while +JPII did all the other anti-catholic things he did.
+Benedict was the head of the "Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith" while +JPII started the immoral and anti-catholic "World Youth Days".
+Benedict promoted "World Youth Days" as pope.
+Benedict managed the 2000 "3rd secret of Fatima" lie to the entire catholic world.
+Benedict has been trying to get the sspx to join new-rome since the 80s.
+Benedict's theology books about Christ's life are blatantly anti-Tradition and he implies that Scripture is allegorical in many areas.
+Benedict promoted communion in the hand whenever he took part in papal masses at large venues.
+Benedict's "motu proprio" supported the novus ordo and disallowed any critique of it or V2 in his letter to fellow bishops, explaining the motu.
.
Shall I go on?  (I don't have time).  +Benedict did not substantially change in ANY area from his pre-papal days to his papacy.  He was arguably more "open" to tradition during his papacy, but we see that this was only to get the sspx to join.  Being open to truth, yet still supporting error/heresy doth not a good (or well intentioned) pope make.

You are addressing specific actions (and not all the claims you made are correct -- for example, he did not encourage Communion in the hand).

Even an objective sin doesn't automatically equate to actual sin, and this is where a person's intent and understanding -- which only God and that person can know with absolute certainty -- become critical factors.

 I don't deny that Benedict was in many, many ways a bad pope.

I think you're out of line to declare that Benedict's actions prove a lack of good will. 

That is not their overall view. The Salza/Siscoe overall view is the hetetical position that even a manifest heretic remains in office until he is judged guilty of the delict of heresy by "the Church"; and by "the Church" they explain that they favour the John of St. Thomas opinion that an imperfect council must judge the pope guilty of the crime, and issue a  vitandus declaration against the pope; although they also say "the Church" must at least "establish the crime" before a hetetic pope can fall from office. 

     The position is heretical because in virtue of the supreme and universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, the pope is the supreme judge in matters of faith & morals, who possesses the jurisdiction to pronounce the final judgment in all cases of heresy.

Furthermore, no juridical judgment of any kind can ever be made against a reigning pope. Such a judgment would destroy the unity of the Church by undermining the governance of the Church, by elevating the non infallible judgment on heresy of an imperfect council over the supreme jurisdiction of the pope; and would destroy the Church's infallibility by depriving the pope of his jurusdiction to infallibly decide a question of heresy, and placing the supreme authority to decide a question of heresy in the power of a non-infallible imperfect council. 

     Finally, I cannot accept the sedevacantist position of "Pax Vobis" who thinks I lose credibility for upholding the valid claim on the Petrine munus of Benedict XVI. Who is Pax Vobis' pope, if even Benedict is too much of a heretic to be a valid pope?