>>you know that the best record we have of what Jesus said is contained in the gnostic Gospel of Thomas
 
I know that book is 'another' record, I can't yield that is the 'best' record.  Just because Thomas supports, in places, more of my personal view, and it certainly plays into the anti-catholic leanings I have - it would be a mistake to say its best record of Jesus.  I don't want to make the mistake of saying Its best just because I like it and it is an enemy of my enemy kind of thing
 
As example, If great amounts of the Jesus story are from earlier myths, like Horis, if Jesus is a composite of person and myth, if any of those views have validity, then Thomas is as much in question as the rest of the gospels.
 
So, all this is to say is that in my view I don't 'know' what Jesus taught.  Ic an guess, I can filter and cherry pick, I can harmonize with love, agape and all that Christ energy stuff, I can read between the lines, I can adapt what I think is Jesus to more modern frameworks, perspectives,  but I don't know
 
Which completely takes away from your point that the catholic church needs to learn,  and change.  My issue with them is that they need to learn meaning they need to get modern, they need to bring their archaic believes forward a thousand years or so.  And they cant do that of course, but that more important to learn what we all think Jesus taught, at least to me.