The following is an excerpt from a September 12th article in America magazine by Brian B. Pinter:
"I led a Bible study series recently at a parish in Manhattan, where most of the participants were hip, advanced-degree-holding professionals. I worked hard to prepare for the classes, and during my presentations on the first three chapters of the Book of Genesis I used the best of historical-critical exegesis by respected Catholic scholars. We explored the differences among various literary forms, examined the historical contexts in which the Genesis accounts took shape and considered the function of foundation myths in ancient Near Eastern cultures. When the participants raised questions about scientific theories concerning the origins of the universe and humankind, I made reference to the 2004 statement by the Vatican-sponsored International Theological Commission, which spoke positively about the Big Bang theory. I also quoted Pope John Paul II’s affirming remarks on the theory of evolution.
Nonetheless, a number of individuals were shocked at the suggestion that the first and second chapters of Genesis did not contain literal, historically accurate accounts of creation. One woman protested, saying, “How do you know the world wasn’t made that way? You can’t prove otherwise!” Another was flabbergasted that I did not affirm the historicity of the talking serpent in Genesis 3: “Are you saying that God can’t create a talking snake?” Finally, an irate young man sent me e-mail to tell me, among other things, that my treatment of Genesis had no place in a Catholic parish and that I should consider becoming Protestant....." You can finish reading the article here
The article then goes on to discuss the issue of Biblical fundamentalism in the Catholic Church. For the most part, the article is on point and follows the general teachings of the PBC document Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. However, while he gives examples of how "Catholic scholarship has moved beyond literalism in its interpretation of the Bible" and names a number of those scholars who have helped move us away from fundamentalism, he does not really give examples of those who teach Biblical literalism within the Church. Rather he refers to the nearly 21% of Catholics, according to a 2007 Gallup poll, who "could be described as unconscious or naïve" in their reading of the Bible. So, is it simply that the 21% just doesn't "know" better or are there Catholic teachers who promote a more fundamentalist approach to Scripture?
My only other issue with the article is that it espouses the importance of avoiding fundamentalism by promoting the use of the historical-critical method in isolation. I am in no way opposed to the historical method, but there is far more to the Catholic interpretion of Scripture than the historical-critical method. Again, see CCC 109-119 or Dei Verbum 7-13 or B16's introduction to Jesus of Nazareth I.