No, it has simply changed its teaching.
Officially, it has not. Even VII doesn't profess evolution. Having said that, recent popes have made it seem that the teaching has changed.
Now we're getting to the crux of the matter!
If what you assert is true, then why do so many Catholics, very much including conservative FReepers and clergy and theologians (whose job it is to explain Catholic teachings) not understand this? Why are online Catholic sites and forums full of ridicule for doubters of evolution or the documentary hypothesis and attacks on their alleged "Protestantism?" Why are Catholics on this thread claiming that 'the Church has never had a problem with evolution?'"
Why do Catholic publications (OSV, Catholic Answers, Liguorian, Catholic Digest, US Catholic, etc.) constantly promote both evolution and higher criticism and attack "Biblical literalism" and traditional authorship of the Bible with such venom? Even The Wanderer believes in evolution! And with all these voices and the utter lack of any disagreement by "traditionalist Catholics," may not one be forgiven for assuming that both evolution and higher criticism are official Catholic teachings?
Incidentally, what about all those Catholic bibles with nihil obstat and imprimatur that teach both evolution and the documentary hypothesis? Haven't they been approved by bishops, successors of the apostles, and "free from error?"
Just what is one to make of all this? Is it really supposed to be "self-evident" that the Catholic Church doesn't teach these things when every organ and spokesman does in fact teach them? Even Catholic Answers attacks the literal Genesis chronology as "un-Catholic!"
Now . . . before you respond to me further, why don't you have a nice private conversation with your two co-religionists (pinged above) who maintain that Catholicism is indeed anti-literal and perhaps always has been? The total lack of any correction by other Catholics does not do the cause of "literalist Catholicism" any good.
Your post deserves a longer response which I can’t give right now, but....
Catholic Answers???? LMAOROFL.
I think I've been pretty clear on what Traditional Catholicism teaches. Your need to constantly slap my wrist over this makes me question your sincerity and your motives. Perhaps I shouldn't continue the discussion with you after all.
And yet Catholics are the epitome of Bible literalists when it comes to supporting their doctrine of the eucharist.
Funny that.
What part of, “some parts are literal, some parts are not,” are you not quite getting? How can one be an “anti-literalist” when one believes large chunks of Scripture are indeed to be understood literally?
Your insistence on putting words in my mouth and your implications that I hold beliefs that I don’t is getting quite dull.