Fair point. There's certainly a distinction to be made between doctrine and what people do with it. The only example I can cite from the source of religion being leveraged to enable shitty behavior is a disfellowshipped Jehova's Witness who left the church not because her husband repeatedly cheated on her, but because when she reported it to the church authorities, she was basically told "well, he denies it, so we have to take him at his word. The truth is between him and god. Now either suck on it or kiss your family, friends and everyone you ever knew goodbye forever." He was a prominent figure in her congregation, or whatever that sect calls them, so she basically said "f**k this, these people are vile" and bounced. She's now married to my best friend's brother.
My point is that when I made mistakes as a wee lad, the emphasis was on what to learn in order to avoid making a similar mistake in the future. Not "come my child, sit in this booth, confess, say hail mary X times and ye shall be absolved." (Shit, back when indulgence was still allowed, the rich could essentially open a tab and sin to their hearts' content with the church's blessing!)
I'm sure it's not the intent of the church to enable sinful behavior, but as long as they break the world down into "those who are saved" and "those who are damned", the saved group can basically do whatever tf they want short of renouncing their faith, and they're still good to go. It's not a horrible system, but with being saved as the highest rung of the ladder, it leaves nothing further towards which to aspire. If anything it gives them a haughty vantage point from which to look down their noses at everyone who hasn't already drunk the kool-aid.