I have no idea who Donal Anthony Foley may be or have been but I suspect I should not encourage anyone to educate me on that subject. Papal documents tend to be replete with Scriptural references. We do, BTW, accept the entire body of Scriptures and do not reject those books inconvenient to Luther's ideology such as Maccabees which includes praying for the souls of disobedient Jewish soldiers killed in battle and sending money to the Temple for sacrifices to that end.
That as to which Catholics have always experienced grave suspicion and toward which we have exercised outright rejection is reformation notions of every person his or her own interpreter of Scripture and the thousands of errors that have arisen from the rejection by reformationists of the granting to Peter of the keys of the Kingdom and the power to bind and loose. It is understandable that those outside the Church reject this Scriptural delegation since no other Church of any apostolic succession has a pope or successor to Peter. What fun is adherence to the reformation if one cannot make it up as one goes along without all those inconvenient truths of the Magisterium.
It is not G-d's Word that is full of errors. That cannot be. It is the distortion of G-d's Word by those who claim to rest solely on the authority of G-d's Word (as they see it). Many claim to resist the "traditions of men" as they call it while believing this week's erroneous interpretation of the Rev. Mr. Whazzisname who has no more authority than anyone in his pews.
What opens the Church or any other institution to evolutionism and a lot of other sins is the sin of Adam and Eve by which all of us became fallen creatures. The papacy enjoys infallibility not impeccability (sinlessness). There may well be many popes in hell where they are joined with many who thought that they were "saved" by merely speaking a rote formula as a teenager regardless of future behavior. Catholics believe that salvation is impossible without the one-time sacrifice of Christ on the cross, but that, like Ohio State, we must grind our way to the end with endless repetition of three yards and a cloud of dust until death.
If G-d wants to make anyone an authority on Scripture or in charge of the keys, He can arrange for that person to be pope. God is wonderful. He can do anything.
Given them an opening? What does that mean? Evos are evos whether I give them an opening or not, and these particular evos are very loud, very vociferous Catholics who consider an openness to evolution as one of the distinguishing characteristics of Catholicism (as opposed to "those awful people").
I do not understand how you can stand by while your co-religionists so loudly proclaim the Bible riddled with scientific and historical errors. Total inerrancy does not mean total theological inerrancy but total inerrancy on all subjects whatsoever. Your co-religionists have loudly, time and time again, insisted that the "old testament" is only "theologically" inerrant. They have hypocritically allowed G-dless "science" to sit in judgment on G-d's Words while refusing to let it sit in judgment on the "new testament" or the miracles of chr*stianity. Why should I not find this absolutely infuriating?
How you can be at such utter peace with these people is beyond me--not to mention the silence of the "ultra-traditionalists" on this forum.