>> Some dogmas…
> You assert this, but provide no example/s. HN isn’t a place for deep dives into this subject matter, but maybe you can outline what you have in mind?

Agree, it's not the best place for that, sadly. But here you go.

1. Infallibility, first. It appeared in the XIXth century (Vatican I), with the rise of state/nations, and the loss of the pontifical states. It was more a matter of reinstating a theological authority and high-ground to the Pope, than a spiritual or theological necessity. It was also an extension of the gradual universal reach of the Pope, Primus inter pare, while the primitive Church had its authority more spread across bishops.

3. Holy Orders. Debatable, but is more a matter of hierarchical management and institutionalisation than a theological necessity to the point of making it a sacrament.

4. Matrimony. Considered sacred before, got formally defined in the XIIth century, in a specific, restrictive form for temporal (more than theological) reasons, to regulate medieval society, at a time the Church was extending its reach and organisation through Europe [1]. Got further canon-coded in the XVIth. Nothing theological per se, although a lot of exegesis has been built on it. Some of the very, very late consideration the Church has brought to marital life, to education to the affective and sexuality realities of life, to the autonomy of the person regarding their sexuality and to the possibility/necessity of divorce, comes from there. It could have been coded differently - and I believe it will change within the coming century, along the Holy Orders.

5. Penence. Evolved from a public and communautary practice in the early Church, to private confession in the Middle Ages, which served partly as a social control mechanism. Sacrament? ok. Which form is valid? several, depending on the time and the context.

6. Confirmation. It's still unclear why it's been split from baptism in the West Church, contrary to the East one. Who's right? wrong? Does it matter really?

7. Extreme Unction. It's purpose/meaning shifted across time (especially with Vatican II, where it got reframed as anointing of the sick), revealing here again a matter of institutional subjectivity rather than a fundamental theological thing.

I'm not saying those are _bad_ things, not at all. I'm saying that the focus on making those that much important in a catholic's life, and so rigid,

1/ derails from the core spiritual and temporal aspects of faith in the Revelation.

2/ denotes a lack of imagination, or a lack of faith, by wanting to provide definitive answers to questions that ought to be more open ended than that; or alternatively, reveals a want of control that is at odds with the Revelation message.

More generally, the dogmas, and the canon code, and the hierarchical structure of part of the Church is fundamentally worthy of critical consideration, always, because they have been used as tools to subjugation and abuse. The abuse of authority by some, totally breaks the justification of this authority, especially when it claims to be of divine inspiration.

[1] it is no accident that the Anglican Church schism happened.

As for catechesis, it's an aside because: 1/ it's not available to all, and it wouldn't be the fault of the receiver not to have received it, 2/ catechesis (as I experienced it in school, in Church, in several monial and secular communities) is waaaay to much emphasised on a top-down education, and not on developing the critical mind and encouraging healthy contradiction, 3/ it still happens to be very poorly managed, by untrained or inauthentic teachers (I have 3 kids, I've had to report creationist bullshit being pushed on each of them).