Such as ... ??? When you make a statement, be prepared to back it up. Please be specific and provide referenced teachings and doctrines to support your argument.
One can either believe our creator, or believe the impossible.
The catholic church tries to straddle the fence, and the gap is bigger than the Grand Canyon.
Considering that the current "theistic evolutionist" teaching of the Church itself represents a change from previous doctrine,
Such as ... ??? When you make a statement, be prepared to back it up. Please be specific and provide referenced teachings and doctrines to support your argument.
So what, you're implying that the current "theistic evolutionist" position of the Catholic Church is the one it has always held? Really???
First there is Arcanum, issued in 1880 by Leo XIII. Then there is the decree of the First Vatican Council that G-d created "all things in the beginning" (which excludes the gradual creation of things by purely natural processes eons after the beginning). And then there is the confession Pope Pelagius demanded of King Childebert, in which the king had to confess that Adam had not been born like other men but created directly, and that Eve had literally been created from Adam's side.
Then there is the fact that none of the church fathers interpreted Genesis as today's Catholic Church does. Not only were they all (with the exception of Augustine) literalist creationists, most of them were "young earth" literalist creationists as well. Even the Orthodox Fr. Seraphim Rose, who wrote the book Genesis and Early Man against "theistic evolution" but who did not believe in a "young earth" was surprised to learn just how much the ancient fathers agreed with today's Biblical fundamentalists on the age of the earth issue; as a matter of fact he found it so unexpected that he made the decision to ignore this fact in his book.
Augustine was not an evolutionist. He believed everything had been created simul in the beginning. This is the opposite of the "theistic evolution" by which the Catholic Church nowadays interprets Genesis as evidenced by all the commentaries in all modern Catholic bibles, without exception.
Do you honestly maintain that the Catholic Church interprets the Bible exactly as it did in the days of Cardinal Bellarmine? Such a claim would be absurd.
Furthermore, in the very article you posted the author spends a great deal of time acknowledging the right of modern uniformitarian science to authoritatively interpret the creation accounts in Genesis. This is a terrible thing to do. Modern naturalistic science has no access to the creation of the world, or even to the state of the world as it existed when it was first created. This means that cosmogony is quite plainly outside the purview of modern science and exclusively the domain of Divine Revelation and theology.
And please, before you automatically post back that "faith cannot contradict reason" please stop and think for yourself for a moment. You don't allow science to describe how the "seedless conception" was accomplished or how the bread and fishes were "multiplied." Science has even less business inquiring into the grandfather of all miracles: the supernatural production of everything from nothing in an instant. But I'm sure you'll ignore this and say it anyway.
One need not believe in the truth of ancient Catholicism or Orthodoxy to admit that the current position of both churches is a modern reaction to Protestantism, not the ancient immemorial "unchanged" teaching . . . however many would like to claim otherwise.