How did you go from this
I am conflating unproven with unproven. If proof is a prerequisite to right action, then all action based on ideas lacking proof lacks rightness. If proof is not a prerequisite then the defense given in that Catholic video of the Catholic Church's actions is specious. Ideas are ideas and carry the same innate weight whether about gods or orbital mechanics
(I used "proof" because you introduced the term.) In the strict sense theories are never proven. Theorems are provable but not theories since they lend themselves to being falsifiable....skepticism. A proof is not falsifiable. There's no need, I'm sure you'll agree, to postulate a theory of some god to make a scientific observation about orbital mechanics.
What a strange misdirection.
Religions are based on a theory, outlined in their religious texts. Catholicism is based on a theory of god loosely based on their bible, for example. The whole religion is a theory, an idea. If it has not been proved, then it has exactly the same merit as any other unproven theory. If it cannot be proved, it has exactly the same merit as a natural theory which cannot be proved. You should note that I used the word natural vs scientific, because the ability to, at some level, prove (or disprove) is necessary to making a theory scientific. That right there was the insight, which I gained at about 7, that switched me from "don't know/don't care" to "religions are false". I figured out enough to understand that a statement which cannot be evaluated cannot be true.
Theology doesn't use scientific inquiry and theory. An ontology uses philosophical discipline in its arguments to arrive at a logical conceptualization, not scientific mechanisms. Similarly, ethics (including humanism) doesn't rely upon scientific mechanisms either.
Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?