Yet there can be systematic, pervasive bias in certain communities that shapes the perceptions and interpretations of scripture and people. The Jewish laws and customs of caring for parents are, and were, observed.
You have not shown that Jesus was obligated to turn over care of Mary to His brothers rather than to a close friend.
Of course I have; even Paul testifies thus.
The fact that Jesus honored His mother and made provisions for her is more important than if He followed some rabbinical guidelines (which you haven't shown existed anyway nor shown to be binding on the actions of Jesus).
I have and I do. Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Matthew, Catholic chapter twenty three, Protestant verses one to three,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
1 Timothy 5 makes the point that the Church shouldn't have to take care of a widow if the family can. Mary wasn't a "widow indeed" or "truly a widow" (depending on the translation) because she had been provided for by her son when He assigned her care to John. Presumably, Mary was not going to become dependent on the Church because of the care of John.
You seem to entirely miss the point. The Apostle, thoroughly steeped in Torah, now binds the Jews and Gentiles in the holy catholic apostolic church in laws to care for their families or become infidels. Did you imagine this was a Moslem word ? That the Apostle made such a strong law argues it came straight from the righteousness of Torah and every righteous Jew knew this to be correct; the Gentiles, however, needed instruction in righteousness that they had not obtained from their mothers', as had Timothy from his ema and Savta (Jewish mother and grandmother).
You mean like the modern Catholic Church reading its positions back into Scripture and the writings of the Church Fathers? That sword can cut two ways. Derogatory terms which imply someone has an irrational hatred for a group serve no purpose in debate other than to try and embarrass or intimidate the other party into silence. As Redleghunter pointed out, the terms you used are akin to the use of "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobe" in political debate to quell opposition.
Your responses to my assertion that you have not proven your point: Of course I have; even Paul testifies thus. I have and I do.
No, you haven't. You provided the laws on inheritance from Numbers and some commentary by a modern Jewish writer. Both of these deal with the distribution of tangible assets which today we would call an estate. But nothing which shows as you earlier claimed that Jesus HAD to assign care of His mother to a brother (if one existed).
You seem to entirely miss the point.
It would have been helpful when you first quoted the passage to include the whole passage rather than stopping at an advantageous point for your argument. Verse 16 summarized Paul's point, not verse 8. Paul rightfully insists that the family provide for the care of the widow as is their duty assigned by God in the most important part of the Torah, the Decalogue: "Honor thy father and mother." Paul is telling the church that only true widows are entitled to church support. Of course, this doesn't apply to Mary because Jesus had saw to her care when He assigned it to John.
For the Catholic position to carry any weight, you need to show that the ONLY lawful thing that Jesus could have done to provide for the care of His mother was to assign it a brother (if one existed). Simple assertions that it was unlawful or scandalous without support are meaningless and should be seen as merely speculation.