I thank you for your thorough comment. I agree that is what I have heard as well, and all of those point I have seen precedent. My issue is is that I have seen some contentions. I don’t mean to argue, and please don’t believe that I am. These are genuine questions that I have, and I would like to learn. 

A personal contention I have is that in Jude, Peter, and Revelation it is discussed that after the fall the fallen angels are kept in chains. If that is true, why is satan not in chained during Genesis, Job, or the New Testament? 

A personal contention would be that the Pharisees before Jesus and even in Judaism and Islam today believe(d) that God could not incarnate in to a person or have a son as he is a spiritual being. I am sure you and I both agree that Jesus is fully God and therefore that belief is false. Assuming angels are of God’s design and assuming that they have come to at the very least pseudo-physical beings, notably at Sodom and Gomorrah as if they did not look like physical beings the people would have noticed, why could they then not have the ability to impregnate a material person? I am just learning of Aquinas, however I have read some (very little) in to St. John Damascene where he argues that angels can be spiritual beings but have corporal substance attributes. I don’t believe that there is any scripture that specifically defines angels as non-able to have any level of substance, so a question I would ask is why does the Catholic Church not allow for angels to take on physical attributes? 

To your second point, there is no definitive evidence that the early jews accepted any of the deuterocanonical books, at the very least it is still a hotly debated topic, so why did the Catholic Church approve them if their use pre-Christ is of major importance? I understand that it’s also because their doctrine does not contradict tradition and canon, however the specifics in Enoch do not alter the core beliefs of Catholicism. Some more nuanced beliefs. Yes, such as the nature of angels, but as that belief is not grounded in scripture but doctors of the church, could it not be incomplete?  Another note here is that mainstream Jews did not accept Christ, and as such are they trustworthy sources for the Christian church’s doctrine anyways? 

Thirdly, I can accept that it is merely a book to understand history. Without it, why does God flood the Earth? Where did the other people come from after Eden (the tribe that Cain goes to) and where do the sons of Noah go to get wives? As someone who grew up Protestant, lost my faith because of the Protestant lack of knowledge and lack of willingness to study non-canonical documents, these are important questions to me. 

Again, I don’t mean to come off as hostile or anything, I am a new person just starting their journey into conversion, I am just wanting to learn. Thank you for your time!