As an academic student of heresy in the Middle Ages, this isn't a defensible position.

The Church of the Middle Ages did not have a tolerance towards discussion, criticism, and contradictions. They had a narrow corridor of discussion that was considered acceptable (i.e. orthodoxy), and if anyone stepped out of line and refused to recant, it was declared a heresy and extirpated. Anyone that did not toe the line of Aristotle, Augustine, and Anselm, were declared heretical and either forced to recant, imprisoned, excommunicated, or executed.

To wit:

Elipandus of Toledo claimed that Jesus was the adoptive Son of God in his human nature. He was condemned at multiple councils, including the Council of Frankfurt (794), with proponents forced to recant or lose their positions.

The Paulicians were a dualist and Gnostic sect originating in Armenia that rejected the material world and Catholic sacraments. They were persecuted by the Byzantine Empire and anathematized by the pre-Schism Church.

Berengarius of Tours (ca. 999–1088) denied the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, arguing for a symbolic interpretation. He also was condemned at several councils, including the Synod of Rome (1050), and forced to recant under threat of excommunication.

The Cathars also rejected the material world, sacraments, and clerical hierarchy. They were brutally suppressed in the Albigensian Crusade (1209–1229), followed by the establishment of the Medieval Inquisition.

Arnold of Brescia (ca. 1090–1155) criticized the wealth and corruption of the Church, calling for clerical poverty. He was executed by hanging and burning after condemnation by the Church.

Peter Abelard was accused of heresy for applying logic to theology, as well as arguing against Anselm's satisfaction theory of atonement with the arguably more defensible and sensical moral influence theory. He was condemned at the Council of Soissons (1121) and forced to burn his works.

Then there are the Waldensians. A movement founded by Peter Waldo emphasizing poverty, lay preaching, and direct access to the Bible. His followers were declared heretical at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and persecuted throughout Europe.

And even Dante was exiled from Florence at the machinations of the Papacy.

And these are only the most famous cases. There are countless others not notable enough, nor successful enough to be recorded in any great detail.

One example is that of the heretics found in Goslar in what is now modern Germany in 1051:

>The heretics "were finally condemned when one of the bishops, more zealous in his presentation of the case than mindful of the dignity of his rank, presented them with a live chicken and ordered them to wring its neck. They refused to kill the bird, and were deemed beyond hope of redemption. Ignoring the arguments and threats of the assembly, they refused to recant and were hanged upon a gibbet."

>The execution of these heretics, as near as can be determined by modern scholars, was ordered because it was felt that "their attitude implied a dualist-type belief in the transmigration of souls through the animal kingdom" and suggested that they were Manichaeans. The events at Goslar — and this group was not alone among persecuted Christian groups in the eleventh century C.E. in its refusal to kill animals — are often treated by scholars as an important step toward the twelfth century full-blown assault on heresy by the Church linked to the newly proclaimed death penalty for heresy.

The entire point of the Church, throughout its history, is not to have discussions, criticisms, and contradictions. That is what orthodoxy is. Diversity of thought in any fundamental dimension in the Deposit of Faith is schismatic and antithetical to the goals of One, Holy, and Apostolic Church.

The attitude that you hold illustrates what Noam Chomsky pointed out in 1998:

>"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."

The Catholic Church throughout its history has exemplified this paternal shepherding attitude. Sure, you can explore Orthodoxy and embellish it all you want, but stray outside of what has been set in stone and refuse to "disagree and commit" and you're branded an outcast and your ability to participate vanishes. Good (nulla salus extra ecclesiam) Catholics will say that this is a Good Thing, which is their right, but please, own it as it's a feature, not a bug, and don't try to cloak the history of the Church.