I appreciate your candor. You seem to have pretty set views, but I think they're caricatures. In particular, while pro-life work that is most visible is someone praying at a planned parenthood (and of course, the ones that harass are typically not even Catholic, since it's not just catholics in this 'movement'), the bulk of pro-life work is exceptionally boring things like collecting bottles, diapers, baby clothes, putting together mum and baby classes, etc. No one talks about this because it's not polarizing. Or take the issue of 'homophobia'. No doubt many Catholics will say insensitive things, but almost anything about the potential of homosexual acts being wrong is today conflated with homophobia. And you ask for Christ's statement on sexual orientation, but they are abundant in the gospels. You seem familiar with them, so let's start:

Matthew 19:5: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?".

As you yourself said, Christ was certainly not afraid of breaking social norms of his day. Heterosexuality was a major norm at the time. Don't you think Christ would have said 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? Oh yeah, and sometimes a man will leave his father and dad and be united to his husband, because that's the same thing'. The lack of teaching on that speaks volumes, as does Christ's strictifying of existing Jewish sexual ethics, rather than loosening (in his ban on divorce).

The second thing that I see is a lack of understanding of repentance. Christ preventing the prostitute's punishment was because she had repented of her sin, not because sin is irrelevant. The same is true of the female priest. Should she repent, I'm sure she'd be welcomed back (otherwise your Gospel passage would be quite relevant). The priests who corrupted children... well this is a very long story and I know of no lay Catholics who really support the church's handling on this. But the existence of sinners doesn't take away from the utility of church. However I'll point out that the reason that happened was that the church bought too much into the mercy rhetoric that you seem to want it to buy into further. A lot of justification for moving priests was based on the assumption that (1) they had repented, (2) the church should be merciful, and (3) based on psychological understandings of sex in the 60s and 70s which were more radical than today, pedophilia was a condition that could be cured.

Anyway, I'm guessing this will fall on deaf ears and that there is an impenetrable barrier that will keep either of us from convincing the other. So to end, I'll just wish you the best. I mean that. Thanks for the response.