Along parallel lines -- when some RC prelate commits error (or a group of them conspire to do so) it is said that only those individuals are committing the errors (or even crimes) but if or when those outside of Romanist confines sin (or did similar to what cliques of RCC priests have done, EVEN RECENTLY or even PRESENTLY!!!) it is pointed towards as proof that their entire "church" is wrong.
If the Baptists had been shown that the cover-up of sexual abuse had gone right up the chain to the very top, periodically going back centuries even --- would you believe them if they were to say "but we are still infallible in our teachings"? But the Baptists don't exactly proclaim themselves to be infallible. The RCC preisthood does. The "teaching" is alleged infallible. Unless it be found to not be. Which leaves a person potentially mislead until the correction rolls down the pike (if it ever does). Or unless a person watches carefully for errors.
How many Catholics point towards other Catholics (particularly priests) and say "look out for that one"? Yet if an outsider does similar --OMG they are attacking the church jesus built!
Then there are the Nancy Pelosi type of Roman Catholics --- obviously unregenerate, correct? herself going from one misrepresentation of facts to another in her quest for her own political party to dominate --- which political party can safely count on about half of the U.S. "Catholic vote". If the same were found among Southern Baptist, would not the fingers be pointed? Aah look, there is the prove they are not so good, that group. Their church must be messed up if so many of their own people are so messed up. Where is the Southern Baptist Pelosi? Is there even one? The more evangelical, the more the polar opposite of Nancy. WHAT does that indicate?
Then there is the attitude towards all others, including the various "Orthodox" which are also, along with EVERYBODY else, viewed from position of the pre-loaded idea "they must be wrong because they won't submit to us".
Excuses are made for the most abominable acts, when those things are to be seen in RC church history. If such acts had occurred elsewhere, the same would taken as sign "God is not with them" (or at least not as much as they would like to think, and demand others think). The double standard is galling, to say the least.
That's what happens when one group declares themselves to be infallible.
There is no such thing as an infallible man (or woman) other than Christ himself. And no, the RCC is NOT "Christ upon earth" to any greater extent than the lowliest Christian is or can be. If that church be "Christ", then it's no wonder so many people seem to HATE him. I would, if I wasn't fortunate enough to have had the Lord himself show me that not only is He real, but that He is good.
Should we be forced to believe that in aggregate, some "group" will get it right, not by unanimous consent, but by majority vote (that all must acquiesce to or leave/be ex-communicated)? If so, when? Now? Until some other change comes along, then it will be, then?
From careful study, it can be shown that much has been added to the original articles of faith. There is plenty of room for the view that changes have crept in, some of them subtle, but having significant effect, leading to departures from the more original template.
That those changes were trying to worm their way in from near to the very beginning (but were resisted by some) either shows those whom resisted were wrong (even as they were closer to the time of the beginnings of the "infallible" church) or that demons were even then doing what they could to corrupt, or at least complicate the message.
I understand what you are saying and yes, I do think that if the same sorts of sins happened there would be “some” who would point and use it as proof that “that” church (whatever it is) was not infallible, that it was not the true church. However, to be fair, when similar things have happened in other churches, religions, etc. other than the Catholic Church I personally have yet to see others pointing to those sins and claiming that those actions are “proof” that they are not in the true church. I have always seen the argument of what is the “true church” based on doctrine and beliefs throughout the ages. I think that most folks see the sin in the various churches as a result of our fallen nature, not the result of being in the “wrong” church. We are all sinners no matter what church we belong to. That’s a fact Jack.
As to the various opinions in the Catholic Church, those are just opinions. Of course, there will always be folks who deviate from the Catholic Faith either in their belief (heresy) or in their actions (sin). These differences in belief are not official Catholic differences. Having said that, these differences in opinion on belief (heresy) within the Catholic Church are most certainly seen as signs of division and are denounced. You just rarely see that here because it seems that most of us are faithful, orthodox Catholics. If you go to a different forum you’ll see Catholics who believe in abortion and gay marriage for example. Those Catholics are completely heretical. Here, I have yet to see any Catholics espousing such things.
As for the “outsider” making judgments about the Catholic Church, is this really all that unusual in other spheres? Think about jokes for example. Is it just as okay for a non-Polish person to make a Polish joke as a person of Polish descent? Or a white person to make a joke about blacks than a black person? Same idea. However, even as an “insider”, I do happen to criticize some things about my Church, including the actions and/or words (or inaction) of some priests, bishops and even the Pope. I’m sure that doesn’t go over very well with others here. I’m still waiting for a fellow Catholic to respond to a PM of mine. I can’t figure out for the life of me why she is ignoring me (as the question was rather benign), but I have to wonder whether it’s because of the way I post.