Problem is, it's hard to have an intelligent discussion when you know that even if you agree with the self-defined other side, you'll get told you're part of the patriarchy, so sod off. Little point attempting to explain (and this shocked me, when I experienced it) that the global RCC (as in, all the members of the church, not just the hierarchy) is massive and politically/doctrinally heterogenous and incredibly complex and that a lot of priests, sensible ones, take the pastoral (commonsensical, compassionate) and not the official line on topics like sexuality. Because it's already been decided that the entire RCC consists of the upper Vatican hierarchy, and that belonging to it makes you ridiculous.
And frankly, if you don't have that inside perspective then what you do see is the hierarchy, and if you don't share the basic theology or have some deep involvement with people who do, there's no reason to look further than that. So there's no real reason to argue, anyway. Nobody's going to be convinced and the anger at the abuses and the incongruities is right and justified in itself.
Still, I'd like to stick my hand up and say that contraception and abortion are not a package of evils for at least some of us (certainly not for me: after all, what better way to lower abortion rates than provide free contraception, oh, and a welfare state, and refuse to stigmatise single mothers); that there are plenty of self-identifying Catholics militating for justice for the victims of clerical child abuse (I already mentioned Geoff Robinson: he is just one, but a very very articulate one); that Papal infallibility only relates to ex cathedra pronouncements which come along about twice a century and relate to theology, not social doctrine; and that, again, I think the value of Francis for a lot of people is quite legitimately in the example he's showing and the way he's, quietly or vocally, encouraging the sensible pastoral approach to filter upwards. We're not all waiting for a signal from the bloody Big Giant Head, you know.