I wonder if we might be talking past each other in one important way: The entire premise of my argument IS based on the origin and use of the name "Christian". My point is NOT that disgusting behavior gets whitewashed by saying, "well then that guy was never really a Christian." And that Christians should be allowed to get away with that or something. My point is that Christians don't get to tell us whether someone is a true Christian or not. We get to tell them. By the very definition of their faith (the examples I tried to raise in my OC) it is supposed to be observable by the outside world.

So I'm trying to argue that from the inside of a Christian belief system they must be responsible for policing this shit. The "no true Scotsman" fallacy doesn't work the same way because the title Christian was not something they gave themselves, it was bestowed.

Again, from the inside of the Christian belief system, the fact that the Bible contains the writings of Paul and that Peter affirmed them as Scripture is enough for them to be persuaded to follow his instructions concerning judgment. I'm not trying to convince you of that if you don't accept it. I'm saying that is their standard for themselves and they don't live up to it in situations like these (the article). If they believe the Bible, they are responsible for judging their community. Paul also tells the church in Rome that because of things they were doing that the name of God was being blasphemed in the unbelieving nations. He makes them responsible for what the "outsiders" thought of God because of their actions.

I'm probably still not explaining this well but that's my attempt to clarify. You're right - I am lost on your point regarding the Catholic Church... Don't see the connection you're making there at all.