In a word, (or two), bu!!$#it. The Catholic Church's only official stance on Darwinism is that Catholics are allowed to study it. After that it's the liars, socialists and atheists out there who take it further than that. Pius XII in fact said that he believes, (and hopes), evolution will soon be lost in the dust of history.
Pope JPII never said ANYTHING officially, (as in an Encyclical). He spoke once publicly on the subject as a PRIVATE DOCTOR, and he (allegedly) stated that "evoution is more than just a theory". Many Catholic scholars believe the original statemnent was "evoultion has more than one theory", but after it was translated into English and twisted in the media it came out as the former. In any case, it was spoken in a speech to scientists, and was not officially or doctrinally declared to the Church faithful.
Oh, that's mature.
The Catholic Church's only official stance on Darwinism is that Catholics are allowed to study it.
Thanks for proving my point. If Darwinism were contrary to the Catholic faith, then we would not be allowed to study it.
However, it's not 1950 anymore. There have been some developments since then, most notably the 2004 theological commission, which you seem to want to ignore. It explicitly authorized by JP2 and presided over by the present pope. Its findings were officilly endorsed by the Vatican. While this does not make it infallible, it is clearly part of the orindary magisterium. Here's what it said:
Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that, if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation.
The comission also said this:
While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.