The Catholic Church believes in the inerrancy of the Bible. Period. Not "up to a point". All of it. But "inerrant" does not mean "always literal", and if you confuse the two, you are going to land yourself in a heap of trouble. Do you not remember that's exactly what the opponents of Galileo did? They used that passage about the sun "standing still in the sky" to "prove" that the sun went around the earth.
The Church also does not "officially" believe in evolution. It takes a neutral stand--saying that Catholics are free to believe in it or not believe in the strictly scientific aspects as they see fit. But the Church has also condemned certain associated theological propositions like polygenism. Pius XII in that document I linked to teaches that Adam and Eve were historical people and that original sin passed down through humankind by heredity.
As for Genesis "contradicting" evolution, I've made a very serious study of this, and I don't see that contradiction frankly. Genesis 1 says very clearly in verse 12: "Let the earth bring forth the green herb", and in verse 20: "Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life".
God commanded the earth and the water to bring these things into being--and isn't that what an evolutionary outlook tells us to expect? The text says in black and white that God created these creatures *through the agency of the earth and water*--i.e. through some kind of natural process.
Evolution as Darwin laid it out may be right or wrong. But I don't see any contradiction with Genesis. Genesis tells us the fact and the theological truth, and good science then fills in the details.
If you don’t mind, I’ll ask you this also: do you consider yourself to be a saint?
I don't mind of course. But let's focus on the historicity of Genesis here rather than spin off into justification and the cult of the saints, etc.
And on the passage about the sun standing still, that happens to be a special case of how God created nature in that in our daily experience it does move across our sky. We still say that the sun or moon or star “rises,” when they’re not going anywhere. It’s the why behind what we experience that’s the issue. And that case shouldn’t make Christians bow to science whenever there’s a conflict. Hundreds of years ago in the “Enlightenment” its leaders determined that only natural explanations for things would be allowed, thereby excluding God as the explanation anything. It’s one thing to be open to the idea that you may be studying God’s Creation, but science was made atheistic back then. (cont’d)
Post 34 also should have been addressed to you.
On Genesis, it’s taking things out of context and reading into them to say they support evolution. Genesis 2 talks of Eve being fashioned out of Adam’s rib, and God also formed animals out of the ground to bring them before Adam (which wasn’t their creation, but miraculous nonetheless). If Genesis 1:1 is true, then God can do “smaller” things. When God created Adam, he would have appeared a certain age, and the same for everything else God created. I’ve seen how atheists hate that idea and say God would be “deceptive” then, but He isn’t. He recorded what happened, and He’s given us the choice to believe Him or not.
Claud, on the question about saints, if you know the Bible then you know that it’s a basic point of the Gospel that the first believers in Jesus, most of them without any education, understood. I’m sure it’s not needed for me to point out to you that you didn’t answer that question, but to me it speaks volumes that you didn’t. I say that humbly asking you to consider why that may be so.