Nope. J*sus love Eskimos and voodoo practitioners and Mayan peasants but he doesn't love "rednecks" because we won't exchange our Bible for Charles Darwin. J*sus accepts totem poles and voodoo cults but not the Bible.
You will find many, many commentaries using Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Just one example is the Navarre Bible. Go to just about any bookstore, and you will see many recently published work on the Church Fathers. Search online at somewhere like Amazon. It would not be possible to read it all, there is such a volume.
Then why does the article you posted echo "modern scholarship" rather than the classic commentators?
The Catholic Church didn't write the Bible -- and I never claimed it did. God inspired it. The Catholic Church canonized and preserved it, as commanded by Christ. I'm talking about the collection as a whole, not individual sections of the OT, such as the Torah, which obviously long pre-dated Christ.
G-d wrote the Torah (974 generations before the Creation, as a matter of fact). The Men of the Great Assembly canonized the rest of the Hebrew Bible. And that's all there is to it.
Why do you find it impossible to accept the literal historical sense of the first eleven chapters of Genesis while accepting without question such things as the virgin birth, transubstantiation, and the resurrection of the dead? Didn't you know that these things are just as scientifically impossible as anything recorded in the Torah? So how do you defend your glaring inconsistency?
An exquisitely putrid smear of Jesus Christ.