Our future is arranged!

What is self-evident is that our existence involves struggle.

Yes, casting my vote here. All life involves struggle, and our struggle tends to be of a more psychological nature given that thought is to us what wings are to a bird, and fins are to a fish.

Original Sin is fundamentally just the idea that at some point something has gone wrong

Almost. I would put it this way instead. We were given a very powerful tool with which to make our living on this Earth, which comes with a very big price tag. The tool is thought, the price tag is the experience of division.

Is this "something gone wrong"? Well, there's certainly plenty of suffering involved, as the price tag is steep. But then we don't have to sleep in holes in the ground like so many other creatures, so there's that.

On balance, it seems to label the emergence of thought in human beings as bad would be to complain about God, given that being immersed in thought was not a choice we made.

A better approach would seem to be to understand the price tag, and learn how to manage it in as constructive a manner as possible, accepting as we do that a perfect management is unlikely to ever be possible.

It's fundamentally an optimistic doctrine, because it implies that there is a place of ultimate belonging and that at some point there will be a joyous homecoming.

"Original sin" as I've defined it is mostly optimistic, as there are simple mechanical solutions available to almost everybody which can address the price tag to a significant, but not perfect, degree. And do so almost immediately.

"Original sin" as Catholics define it is basically a horror show where threats of eternal violence are leveled at frail human beings, and then the frail human beings are blamed for the horror show that they didn't invent, and the payday is a vague maybe someday off in the future business.

But we don't need to understand all of reality to see that some propositions are logically incoherent, for example.

Which may or may not be relevant to the subjects being discussed. Members seem incapable of grasping that the concept of "logically incoherent" was invented by a species with thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down it's own throat, an ever present existential threat it finds too boring to discuss. That is, a logically incoherent species, or rather a literally insane species.

And we don't need to understand all of reality to see that any understanding of reality will necessarily be founded on certain principles.

Again the assumption that reality is required to comply with our rules. That's like saying the ocean is required to comply with rules cooked up by a grain of sand.

That's all perfectly fair, but I would want to add that the sin of "cafeteria Catholicism" has many forms, including some forms that masquerade as "traditional Catholicism".

For example, the logic of your first paragraph (which, I want to emphasize, I find perfectly valid) can easily be manipulated so that one ends up selectively ignoring some magisterial teachings because of a private judgement that they are not "sufficiently in conformity with the general teachings of the Church".

None of this is to take away from your valid point, it is only to suggest that "cafeteria Catholic" epithet can be hurled in both liberal and conservative directions.

I am not judging Bishop Barron here, but I would note that the magisterial force of any bishop's teaching is measured by its conformity to the general teachings of the Church.

It is one thing to err in one's beliefs innocently. But it is another when one knows the teaching of the Magisterium and still deliberately dissents, especially by public advocacy of such dissent.

There is such a thing as "sentire cum Ecclesia," "thinking with the Church," which all Catholics are called to do. Dissenters become "Cafeteria Catholics," who pick and choose their beliefs.

We used to have another name for them. The were called "Protestants."

You are in general correct here. My only hesitancy is that the monitum still stands as of this moment, meaning that the Holy Office in 1962 found Teilhard's writings "swarming with theological errors."

The fact that a certain insight from Teilhard may be reinterpreted in a manner consonant with orthodoxy is not a case of general absolution -- just as we can thank Communism for highlighting the abysmal conditions of the working class.

If you read Teilhard's actual writings in the context of his own worldview, his orthodoxy is besmudged with those "theological errors."

the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops' decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind.

So, if Bishop Barron, in a YouTube video that surely counts as ordinary magisterial teaching, is advocating that we express our ecclesiology in terms of degrees of participation rather than "either you're in or you're out", should we not give some allegiance of mind to this teaching?

This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra

OK, but in that case, let us loyally submit our intellects to ordinary magisterial teaching that encourages us to use Teilhardian expressions of the faith in at least some cases, as in Laudato Si, where we read this nod to Teilhard's Omega Point: "... all creatures are moving forward with us and through us towards a common point of arrival, which is God, in that transcendent fullness where the risen Christ embraces and illumines all things." (And note that I am not imagining the connection to Teilhard, because the preceding sentence in the encyclical refers to an endnote with explicit reference to him.)

In other words, let us note that ordinary magisterial teaching itself recognizes that at least one of Teilhard's most central ideas illumines, and does not detract from, our faith. Let us note that magisterial teaching itself takes valid expressions of the faith wherever it finds them and does not insist on drawing ideas only from exemplars of orthodoxy.