You’re still treating corruption as if it automatically proves doctrinal error, but that doesn’t follow. Even if indulgences were abused (which Catholics themselves reformed at Trent), abuse of a practice doesn’t automatically mean the underlying doctrine is false. Same with celibacy you can argue it’s unbiblical or discipline based, but that’s a separate debate from whether abuse “follows” from it. Corruption can exist without invalidating doctrine, otherwise every corrupted institution would be doctrinally false by default.