And which "ancient human writer" intended to allegorically communicate Darwinian evolution? Evolutionists invoking the "intent of the ancient human writer" is like them invoking "the Truth is One" in order to excuse double truth.
Of course, scripture is discernible through reason to a great extent, but when in doubt it is the Church who interprets the scripture. In the Creation, we'd point out that some of the language in the Genesis is clearly metaphorical as it uses everyday words to describe cosmic events. It would therefore be without warrant to necessarily understand the six days as our conventional time measure, or to understand the making of man from mud in the literal sense of God shaping man as a clay sculpture and putting a soul in. You could interpret it that way, but you don't have to. The Church is simply silent on the chronological duration of the process of creation, or on physical mechanisms of the creation of life. You can hold the fundamentalist literal creationist view and be perfectly Catholic, or you can hold the view that the world was formed like the astrophysics teach, and be perfectly Catholic.
Fundamentalist Protestant churches don't teach or believe anything. They are aggregations of people who believe certain things--things which the Catholic Church considers of no importance. I will never understand why this is so. And btw, there are Catholics who will invoke long-forgotten Papal declarations to insist that 100% literalism is an absolute requirement, and there are the far greater number of modern Catholics who will tell literalists like me to get out because believing that way "isn't Catholic."
So, what parts of the biblical account of the Creation are dogmatic teaching? Off the top of my head:
This is about it.
Why not assume that every letter written down my Moses at G-d's dictation is there for a purpose and is part of the message? Of course, if you deny this fact of Tradition and want to believe the Bible is the product of many generations of redaction of ancient near eastern mythology then you aren't going to accept this (though you have to ignore the statement that man is to live by "every word which proceeds from the mouth of G-d"). It sounds to me like Mr. Foley is correct that the modern Catholic proclivity for evolutionism and higher criticism is the result of of an anti-reformation tendency to view them as allies against sola scriptura and to regard Biblical inerrancy as inherently anti-magisterial and Protestant.
Second, we believe in progressive justification and reject the salvation theology that considers some men once and for all saved and the rest once and for all reprobate. When a Catholic fails short of some precept, but struggles to improve, he remains Catholic, and a rather typical Catholic at that. It takes first familiarity with, and then a defiance of, the Church teaching to make one non-Catholic. Even that can be restored with sacramental repentance.
In other words, Catholicism/Orthodoxy is saying that chr*stianity is merely another legal system presaged by the Torah rather than a "dispensation of grace." And indeed, "salvation" implies complete passivity. Therefore only Calvinists and universalists believe in true "salvation." But since historical chr*stianity is a legal system, what argument for superiority does it have over the legal system that predated it and came from G-d on Mt. Sinai (and forget for the moment your automatic assumption of the truth of chr*stianity)? That legal system had everything that the later chr*stian system does. What is the argument against it? I believe evolutionism and higher criticism are utilized by modern Catholics for this reason as well.
I'm going to say this again and probably be ignored or misunderstood again: Protestantism was born in the Pauline polemic against the Torah. The reformers merely applied the argument consistently (not merely to the "old testament" law and ritual but that of the Church as well). Catholicism's arguments against Protestantism sound awfully Jewish just as its arguments against Judaism sound awfully Protestant. Why preach Protestantism to the Jews and Judaism to the Protestants?
Anyway, thank you for your insights, though I've heard them all before.
None, of course, if by Darwinian you mean atheistic, or if you mean that Moses was aware of theistic evolution but chose to communicate it allegorically. If you mean that God, possibly, set up the evolutionary mechanisms, then it is a possible allegorical meaning of man made of mud and of the order of creation from lower animals to higher. Moses got the essential spiritual truths right but did not intend to write a manual of genetics. Mind you that I personally don't hold the evolutionist views, so don't expect much zeal from me defending them.
Fundamentalist Protestant churches don't teach or believe anything. They are aggregations of people who believe certain things--things which the Catholic Church considers of no importance. I will never understand why this is so
True, that is one difference with Catholicism where the Church very much has the mind of her own. As to what things you say are of no importance and why, -- which are they?
there are Catholics who will invoke [X] and there are [...] modern Catholics who will tell [Y]
True. Yet, X and Y are both allowable views. Generally, Catholics are living people with brains and opinions, and serious Catohlics are keen on deciding for themselves what is and what is not truly Catholic. Whic abutts your other question, why is there a number of opinions in a top-down hierarchical church. Well, it is because not everything is a part of the deposit of faith that the Church is called to preserve.
Why not assume that every letter written down my Moses at G-d's dictation is there for a purpose and is part of the message?
That is the assumption, yes. But this leaves open the question of the interpretation of the message and the purpose. For example, the literalist interpretation of "six days" or "mud" or "Lord God walking in paradise at the afternoon air" is also an interpretation, one among many.
the modern Catholic proclivity for evolutionism and higher criticism is the result of of an anti-reformation tendency to view them as allies against sola scriptura and to regard Biblical inerrancy as inherently anti-magisterial and Protestant.
That could be, at least in the West. But it is noteworthy that the Orthodox reject the sola scriptura even more forcefully than the West, and they never had to deal with Protestantism. The view on the inerrancy of the Bible -- which is not rejected, only literalism is rejected, -- has its historical roots in the fact that the Church, long before the Eastern Schism, had an intimate knowledge of the interaction between tradition and scripture as it produced the New Testament books. Also, it is incorrect to identify the Catholic method with high criticism; in fact it is the patristic method of scriptural analysis based on examination of all the revealed truths -- other scripture, lingusitic and historical facts, memory of the Church, etc, -- in order to get to the meaning of a particular passage.
In other words, Catholicism/Orthodoxy is saying that chr*stianity is merely another legal system presaged by the Torah rather than a "dispensation of grace."
I don't see how it follows. Progressive justification in the lap of the Church is only possible because of the Divine Grace, and is predicated on mercy rather than law. Moreover, Catholicism most emphatically does not see the Old Testament law as binding on Christians as written. It is only binding insofar as it is re-affirmed by Christ or is natural law discernible through reason.
since historical chr*stianity is a legal system, what argument for superiority does it have over the legal system that predated it and came from G-d on Mt. Sinai
Like I said, your premise is incorrect -- Christianity is not a legal system. Whatever laws it contains are merely accessories to strengthen the faith in Christ True God and True Man; these laws do not determine the salvation of the soul. The superiority of Christianity as the Way is that it is, quite simply, taught by the living God. The laws of Moses are given for a specific and historical purpose to a specific nation of people, and that purpose has been fulfilled on the Cross.
Why preach Protestantism to the Jews and Judaism to the Protestants?
Because, I repeat myself, the Christian timeline is not linear, it centers in the person of Christ. Before the Cross, He is the revolutionary upsetting the tables in the Temple; after the Cross He is the conservative preserving the sacred deposit of faith.