Perhaps, but that does not mean we should not believe in the “total accuracy” of the Bible. Just because the Bible is not literally true, does not mean it is not The Truth. It probably means we are just too stupid to understand it.
That's what the bishops were saying, if you read the article. The Times over-dramatized it.
They're saying certain parts should not be cited as scientific or historical authority. Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as symbolism.
Of course the fundie anti-Catholic bigots will take the Times' bait ....
"It probably means we are just too stupid to understand it."
Replace 'stupid' with 'prideful' and you just might be on to something!
If we're too stupid to understand it, why did God give it to us as His Word?
The Bible is not "totally accurate." Do you read the comics the same way you read the front page of your newspaper? Or the editorials the same way you read the classified ads?
Different writing, different way of explaining things (through allegories and stories). The MESSAGE is what is important, not all the ancillary details.
For instance, Jonah literally in the belly of a fish for three days? Come on. Jonah's story is an allegory prefiguring Christ in the tomb for three days.
Were some of Christ's parables embellished by the Gospel writers? Probably, in fact, very likely.
I believe the bishops were referring to taking the Bible as literal truth. Which some people still do.