Stimulating stuff! I have a lot to say in response, so I’ll probably write it up as an article. But I’ll just present a few thoughts here.

I wonder whether, in distinguishing between a timeless God and our evolving conception of the deity, you’d be inclined to take a Hegelian view of that history. Does God direct Christianity’s evolution so that the endpoint is preordained? Or are the clash between factions and the codifying of orthodoxy largely accidental? Perhaps demonically chaotic?

I think another drawback of idealistic monotheism is sociological, as I point out in my series on the “cold war” between intellectual minorities and normie, low-brow majorities. Idealism is potentially maximized in totalitarianism, as you say, but another social consequence is that idealism might be subversive, which is why prophets are tamed or co-opted when the ideals aren’t taken up by dictators. Christendom seems to have domesticated Jesus.

Your defense of religious centrism is intriguing. But I wonder whether this centrism would serve God or God’s politico-religious representatives. Is the Catholic God a bean-counter, a bureaucrat who must balance extremes to settle on a political compromise? You’d have the fallen angels on the one side, God’s ideals on the other, and humans caught in the middle. And God, as a hamstrung social planner would make political decisions to balance these forces. Would that deity still be inspiring to you? Or would the simpler explanation be more like Georges Bataille’s? The sacred would indeed be perfectly taboo, and we would compromise because of our weakness (our susceptibility to sin). A minority (monks, prophets, artists, etc.) wouldn't compromise and they’d be marginalized by the smaller-minded masses.

Either way, I think Catholics have a conflict of interests in defending the exigencies of history that resulted in their Church’s empowerment (and its later downfall in modernity). Are they talking for God or for themselves?