I'm still baffled by how such an innocuous term can cause so much distress. If we can't talk frankly and freely on a conservative forum without being constrained by political correctness then we might as well sit down, put our head between our legs, ... and let the Leftists completely take over this country.
So I employ things like the video of the Romanist being counseled by the Calvinist therapist hoping that might wake a few people up to how they're being perceived.
I think that's a bit of a common dodge. You are responsible for your actions and for your part in the effectiveness of them. Spreading the Gospel, for example, doesn't mean throwing books at people's heads. If they avoid you and don't read it, it's not God's fault, but yours.
If people reject your message because of you or how you present it, you can look to St. Paul for his approach.
how such an innocuous term
You've already posted that your intent is not innocuous. It's a pretty blatant slur, name-calling. We don't belong to the Romanist Church, there is no Romanist Church, we're not Romans, or even Italians, the Vatican is a separate country from Italy and not the same as Rome. So it's a slur that shows the user doesn't know enough about our Church to even listen to them.
We call the it the "Mother" Church. How would you react to someone who insults your mother?
So I employ things like the video of the Romanist being counseled by the Calvinist therapist hoping that might wake a few people up to how they're being perceived.
Trust me, if it's Catholics your targeting, you're pushing them away by flagging yourself as a, pardon me, know-nothing bigot. I'm not saying you are but that's the flag you're waving. You'll get rah-rahs from your fellows perhaps but acrimony from Catholics.
Further, while we argue theologies in the forum, I think evangelization efforts are better spent reaching out to non-Christians. In an effective manner.