Obviously, Jesus loved John. That is a tautology. Do you think He didn't love the other Apostles as much?
To me it is strange modern evangelicals desire to throw-in with Helvidius, and even repudiate the reformers as a way of doing that. However, free will being what it is, and antipathy and opposition to the Catholic Church acknowledged, I am not surpised at anything anymore
What? The passage you cite puts the first responsibility on the children if the mother has no other means of support. It does not say, for example, to take care of one's rich mother who does not need taking care of. Jesus, as the oldest child of His widowed mother, did take care of that, thus relieving the obligation of the other children. This is in full compliance with the passage. Besides, it is not even clear that the brothers of Jesus were even believers yet. That would have disqualified them from the requirement here.
Obviously, Jesus loved John. That is a tautology. Do you think He didn't love the other Apostles as much?
What? I was clearly referring to all of the many verses describing John as the ONE Jesus loved. Surely you are familiar with them. I do not think this designation meant that Jesus loved any of the disciples more or less in a Christian sense, but it does indicate to me that Jesus had unique relationships with His disciples. For whatever reason, John was favored. At the darkest hour, he was the only one among the Apostles who showed up. It makes perfect sense that Jesus would choose John.
To me it is strange modern evangelicals desire to throw-in with Helvidius, and even repudiate the reformers as a way of doing that.
I'm not sure what you mean by repudiating the reformers, but by my limited reading on this, it does appear that Helvidius was correct on this issue. He sure took a beating from Jerome, who called Helvidius an "ignorant boor who has scarce known the first glimmer of learning, ..." (New Advent). As a Reformer, when I hear this my first thought is to think that this Helvidius guy must have been alright! :)