Well said, but I think you're only pushing the problem back a step. I've criticized the catechism, and you agree the catechism is absurd, but point out that such absurdities are needed for any religion. In that case, the obvious question is whether religion itself is necessary. Must spirituality be politicized to placate the lower standards of the unspiritual masses, who need authority figures to tell them the difference between the sacred and the profane?

More precisely, we face the possibility that whereas the premodern world may have required such religions, liberal societies may be prepared for individual spiritualities. The masses must be led when they're uneducated peasants. But when modern progress elevates the lower classes, everyone can live like an aristocrat, with the same cynicism and skepticism about religious platitudes, making liberal/modern religions oxymoronic.