Actually as i stated many of the academics in Tolkien—A Celebration read the book that way. Indeed, that reading is not inconsistent at all with what they have to say about the subject. The book could not have been written in the way it was without that Tolkien’s Catholic perspective. But thank you for your license to read it as others have :) Oh -—see eg Sean McGrath, The Passion According to Tolkien.
I quoted what Tokien said himself:
the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous.You are making "guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous". The license you talk about is exactly the freedom that Tokien meant to give to the reader of his work. You are quite welcome to think you know more about Tolkien's intentions and motivation than he did. But I see a lot of literary criticism like that coming out of academy today. The idea is that the author really didn't know what he was talking about when he spoke about his own work. But we in the early 21st century know all about psychological reductionism, so all we have to do is find the authors political party, religion, social conditions, etc., and then we interpret the work in those terms, as if the author were only a passive conduit pipe of forces beyond himself. This sort of quellenforschung has become the stalest of cliches. I find little of this approach convincing, but rather an indulgence in self-flattery.