The purpose of theology?

Yes, I did want that to be a question mark at the end of my title. And yes, I apologize for being so terrible at updating my blog. In return, I shall try to post a few this weekend. I've got three topics on my mind, and I hope they play out logically and sort of systematically. Bear with me here. 
First, I want to talk about the purpose of theology. Thomas Aquinas talks about theology being the highest science because its subject is the greatest subject (ie, God) that we can study. Anselm talks about theology as "faith seeking understanding." But when theologians try to "build a framework" that is chalk-full of highfalutin vocabulary and largely inaccessible to any but the most studied audiences, I have to really call into question the mindset of the theologian.
But before I get into criticizing people who make a great deal of every last detail of doctrine, I should just make my point. Theology is really about two things: how to live your life, and how to take care of your soul. The soul portion of this could be modified or understood as the pastoral lens. That is, priests and ministers study theology so they can better help the people in their care to find hope, faith and love. The life portion is most clearly illustrated in ethics, and it is (in my opinion) supposed to be an application of pastoral aspect of religion in real life. I think these two aspects are most important because I believe this is why people go to church, and why every religion (at least that I can think of) has both a system of eschatology and ethics.
Every piece of theology, then, must be evaluated in relationship to these two broad functions of religion. Every dogma and piece of doctrine should either be designed to pastorally guide someone or ethically direct someone. Of course, it should never be the case that the two aspects of religion are completely divorce, so what you believe pastorally should be reflected in what you believe ethically. 
Let me provide an example. The doctrine of "imago dei" (human beings being made in the image and likeness of God) is useful pastorally because it means that we have a special relationship with God. This in turn means that humanity is essentially good and has a great destiny and can be understood as a positive understanding of the world and our relationship to it. For those who have a negative self-image or a sense of worthlessness, this doctrine can be incredibly helpful. On the ethical side of things, however, this means that the way we treat other human beings is reflective of how we are treating the images and likeness of God. Human social interaction becomes much more important when we understand our work as being directed at God. As Jesus says in Matthew 25, "Inasmuch as you have done it to the least of these my brothers and sisters, you have done it unto me." Thus, imago dei serves as both a pastoral message of hope and a strong social norm.
We can do this with many other doctrines within Christianity. But at some point we end up finding doctrines that are, frankly, quite puzzling. For example, I find much of the nuanced view of systematics to be neither helpful ethically nor pastorally. If I have to imagine God, for example, as completely immutable, unemotional and unchanging, I might begin to think of God as uncaring, which is a rather unhelpful concept of God. Similarly, I might think of my work as being unnecessary, which prevents any sense of necessity for living an ethical life.
We can do this with all sorts of doctrines. The Lutheran doctrine of sola fides is unhelpful ethically, just as a more rigorous view of casuistry is unhelpful pastorally. Doctrines about the Trinity or the human-divine nature of Jesus are only helpful insofar as they can be applied to ethics or pastoral work. Understandings of God as transcendent or "wholly other" can also be unhelpful. 
What I mean to say is, when I go to Mass and take the Eucharist, does having a nuanced understanding of transubstantiation or satisfaction theories of atonement enable me to be spiritually enrichened? When I go out into the world and conduct my everyday business, does an understanding of Jesus as being "of two natures" and Mary as "theotokos" really help me to be a better person?
The history of the Church is sometimes a history of condemning persons who just happened to not share the same view on a minimally important issue. It seems to me that condemning Arius for not understanding Jesus as both divine and is far less important than stopping the slaughter of innocents in the Crusades or torture in the Spanish Inquisition. Why are we worried about getting the fine points of our doctrines of "the wholly transcendent" right while we grossly neglect our ethical obligations, or our pastoral duties?
This is particularly applicable today. Rome has been preoccupied with making the Mass translations "more accurate" (though less idiomatic) and condemning people who think women can become priests. Instead, it should be focusing on how to reach out to women in general, LGBTQ men and women, people who have been sexually abused by clergy, and women who have undergone traumatic events. Rather than condemning mandated birth control, the Vatican ought to be listening to the needs of the people. 
I think by and large the laity gets this. Catholics today tend to be more concerned about social justice issues and less concerned about every word that comes out of the Vatican. Catholics DON'T believe in the inherent evil of birth control, abortion or homosexuality. Catholics DO believe in the grace of God, the importance of the love command, and the need to aid the poor and afflicted. Most of all, I think, Catholics believe in the true Christian message, preached by Jesus, in the Gospels.
Anything that does not further aid people pastorally or guide people in a loving way to live their lives like Jesus is at best unhelpful, and at worst, utterly worthless theologically.