Look I'm not learned as you are, but I thank you for trying to see something good at least in the spirit of what I'm saying, even if I'm not doing a good job of saying it.
I'll say a few random things (not well developed arguments) and you can correct me but here's how I feel
It's hard to provide proof of something when the proof depends on a vacuum. There is a certain kind of vacuum here of a diversity of thought. Thought that is tolerated, thought that isn't downvoted or thought that doesn't get expressed because of the what's popular here. Even though it is imaginary points, people don't like to feel rejected, and hence they don't even post. Why do I say that? Because I see real world Catholics and I see this sub and it isn't even remotely close in resemblance to the diversity of opinion. It's easy to dismiss that intellectually as 'hah, all those catholics are not real catholics because they don't believe X, Y and Z'. But that by itself is an arrogant dismissal of a large swath of people who have many nuances and different things they personally emphasize. Most importantly, they are people of goodwill who seek the Lord.
I can bring up posts, comments or the existence of certain POV's as 'proof' but what will ensue is a debate about the 'correctness' of those thoughts in the first place and again the result will be nothing more than to prove what was already clear: the preference of the majority here on this sub. The issue I see with it is this - the things that are 'clear cut' to conservatives and the things that are 'nuanced' to them; they don't see it fit to extend the same latitude to the so-called 'liberals' (and I try not to get into those narrow defintions myself but can't aviod it here). It seems the arguments conservatives make are always finagled in a way that supports their POV. Pope is the defender of faith when it's Benedict, but a Pope can make mistakes if it's Francis. Those that question previous traditionalist popes are treated with a "how dare you", whereas everyday here there is a link to a blog or post that talks about schism or poor leadership from Francis and that's fine! Jesus is crystal clear on adultery but Pope Francis is a leftist/socialist when he's with Jesus on worship of money. How do you debate these things? And why should people have to win debates to even express themselves here...
Catholic writers such as Thomas Merton and Richard Rohr and Rohlheiser that many Catholics read for spiritual food. There are many more and entire groups of perfectly good catholics even (Jesuits for example, whom I've seen many times pilloried) who wouldn't make the cut on this sub based on the purely intellectual and cut n dry positions on this sub... if such large groups of people don't make it, what hope do ordinary catholics who don't have the tools to defend themselves have in participating here meaningfully?