I won't try to jump in on your whole argument here (I wasn't invited and haven't read all your posts), but the Catholic Church certainly does believe in the existence of speaking in tongues (both flavors). It's just not a common occurence
There are lots of "charismatic" Catholics, and they are not at odds with any doctrine I'm aware of (they were certainly supported by the parish I grew up in).
Which brings me to a confusion I've often had on these threads... I thought the original idea was a "debate" primarily between Catholic and Southern Baptist beliefs. Baptists are really the ones that view the gift of tongues in a negative fashion (not that RCs go full-boar Toronto-blessing kind of tongues). I'll try to answer the question for them: My understanding of their theory is that the gift of tongues was primarily a temporary gift for use until the cannon of Scripture was closed. I haven't got my Bible with me, but I think it's 1 Cor 13 that deals with seeing unclearly until the perfect comes etc.etc... Essentially, the fuller revelation of Scripture removed the need for the implied authority of tongues and the interpretation of tongues.
I am charismatic as well. The point I was attempting to make is that normative Christian practice of the first century (i.e. baptism by immersion and speaking in tongues) is not normative Christian practice for much of the Catholic church. That's all. Thanks for your posts.