Replies

Everyone needs to define their terms. What do you mean by "darwinistic evolution," for example?
As has already been noted above, he's referring you to a secondary source that is attempting to summarize a primary source document. Is the summary fair? Complete? Slanted in a particular way? The only way to know is to go back to the primary source. Also, note just what kind of teaching document the primary source is.
Also, note that Papal authority is not retro-active. Your correspondent seems to be under the impression that something BXVI wrote before ascending the Papal throne automagically has more authority than something written by any other (e.g.) Prefect of the CDF (Cdl. Ratzinger's previous position). It doesn't. You might conclude that's probably sound theology (since BXVI is a sound theologian), but the author's subsequent election to the Papacy doesn't invest the document with any more authority than it previously had.

Campion’s right. Go back to the Primary Source:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

I actually agree with what the document said on this score. Maybe not “virtually certain” from a *single* organism but I do hold to some form of common descent.

Nevertheless, this is a study document of the International Theological Commission. It was approved for publication by then Card. Ratzinger, but it looks to me more like a theological meditation of this commission rather than a document with any kind of magisterial force (as Humani Generis was). There’s no notion here of “this must be believed” etc. The belief in common descent is obviously endorsed by the Commission but that doesn’t mean it is endorsed infallibly by the entire Church. And as its a scientific fact with no readily apparent theological ramifications, I’m not sure the Church would ever presume to pronounce on it anyway.

It would seem to me that any Catholic has the right to disagree with the Commission on this point of science.