I fully agree, and I'm sure theologically that is what the Catholic Church wants to say. However, I also believe during its history - especially when it was a significant political power - that it used the current wording to maintain control. "Once you've been exposed to the Catholic Church, you better not step outside the bounds of the Catholic Church or you're not saved. Why, even those Muslims we're fighting will be saved, but YOU won't because you left!" Powerful words of control, indeed!
Your summary gives a tacit "approval" to searching God via other ways. Other branches of Christianity, or even other religions could be considered as an acceptable path to salvation, and thus why stick with obedience to the words and dictates of the Catholic Church?
A lot of the Catechism is, I believe, a result of the Church's previous interest in being more of a worldly power than a spiritual one. And unfortunately, because of the Church's position that its teachings are infallible (again, I believe this stemmed from its desire to maintain worldly control over recalcitrant princes and kings), it is awfully hard to change without blowing its own credibility. Pride stops the Church from correcting its previous errors.
I am sure some Catholics would say that, but not all, and certainly not the Magisterium. I also find that, on the one hand, they say Muslims are included in the plan of salvation, but on the other hand they add a stipulation—rather, a rationalization—that a Muslim who was saved actually, consciously or not, "converted" in his heart, and died a "Catholic!" As they say: everyone in heaven is a Catholic.
As far as the Protestants are concerned, as long as they have been baptized in what is perceived to be a Catholic baptism, they are actually "Catholics" even if they don't exclude yourself form the visible Church by being rebellious.
There is also way too much "legalese" involved, but, hey, that is understandable considering how Christianity was put together: you had to make sense of things that were stitched together from things that had nothing to do with each other. Expecting it to be straight forward is simply not realistic.
This apparent open minded approach of the Cathoic Church on closer scrutiny reveals that all "true" religions are really closet Catholic faiths, and that those who are saved are "Catholic" even if they never heard of Catholic or know what Catholic means. That way the Church can insist that only "Catholics: go to heaven without appearing hegemonistic or chauvinsitic.
But, in all fairness, the Evangelicals are no different. They go all over the world to convert people to Christ because they believe one is saved only through him. What differs between the Catholics and the Evangelicals is just the label. Instead of calling the "saved" Catholics, they are called Christians!
How can I give approval to anyone I have no control over? People believe whatever they want to believe. My only objection is how do you search for something you don't know? What is God? How can you recognize God in a form, or word, or occurrence if you can't tell me what God is in his nature or essence?
We know that children are humans because we know what constitutes the essence of humanity (human nature). Once we know what is characteristic of human nature, what makes humans human, we can apply that quality to different forms and call them human. Essence before form!
If we cannot know what makes God God, and we cannot know that, then how can you tell what is from or of God, what is divine? Well, that's easy: people make up a definition and go from there. In other words, they make a "leap of faith."
But, just as Evangelicals are going to "save" infidels by making sure they die Christians, and as Catholics preach that all who are in heaven knowingly or not knowingly "became" Catholics in this lifetime, and as Muslims will either convert or kill those who refuse, it all comes to the same thing: those in heaven will be just like you!
When something is built on a premise that it cannot err, because God either dictated it, wrote it, ordained it from freen form any error, or protects it from straying into error, expecting an admission of error in matters of faith is simply a non-starter. No religion will admit error of faith. Every religion in its own eyes is the "true" one. It's much more than pride. It's a matter of survival.
I see your point. First, I need to iterate that all these problematic cases: the ex-Catholics, the Protestants, the Muslims, the Jews, other non-Christians receive in principle the same treatment: their salvation is possible according to their works, uncertain, and extraordinary; whereas the salvation of Catholics, Orthodox, and some others who have access to the valid sacraments of the Church is sure to the extent that they avail themselves of them.
But we know something else: rejection of the truth once received is a serious sin (connected to the cardinal sin of pride). This speaks to your remark: indeed, someone who once was Catholic and fell away has endangered his salvation much more than, for example, some Muslim goat herder who never knew anything outside of his village, and has lead a moral, clean, charitable life the way his mullah taught him.