Honestly, the perameters were a lot looser than most trads probably would prefer.  But they are a lot stricter than most modernists would prefer.  I personally think it was pretty well balanced.  I usually more enthusiastically recommend it to people who are moving toward the skeptical side moreso than strict young earthers, but honestly I think its worth reading in general.

Here are a couple of books you may wish to buy:
http://kolbecenter.org/store-2/#!/Humani-Generis-on-Evolution/p/25884210/category=3268836
"In Humani Generis on Evolution, Fr. Victor Warkulwiz demonstrates that Pope Pius XII in Humani generis upheld the fundamental tenets of the traditional Catholic doctrine of creation and the validity of the literal historical interpretation of Genesis.  Humani generis did not endorse theistic evolution or allow it to be taught. Instead, Pope Pius XII laid down firm guidelines to insure that Catholic scholars who examined the evidence for and against the claims of the evolutionary hypothesis would be able to confirm and defend the truth of the traditional doctrine of creation."

http://kolbecenter.org/store-2/#!/Theory-of-Evolution-Judged-by-Reason-and-Faith/p/13975841/category=3268836
Fr Francis O'Hanlon (Translator), Ernesto Cardinal Ruffini (Author), Archbp Thomas Boland (Preface)

"Though published in 1959, this work is more important than ever in our times since the question of evolution is central to the errors of Modernism. A scholarly study, Cardinal Ruffini (1888-1967) expounds what the Catholic Church teaches on the subject, and then ably demonstrates how modern science contradicts the theories of evolutionists." 

Let me help ---

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/10/28/359564982/pope-says-god-not-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand

In a move that could be aimed at healing a rift between science and religion, Pope Francis has said that evolution and the Big Bang are consistent with the notion of a creator. And according to the pontiff, believers should not view God as "a magician, with a magic wand."

Let me help ---

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/10/28/359564982/pope-says-god-not-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand

I'm just so glad the SSPX will never compromise...

Let's look at Francis' quote, to which Father Laisney alludes --

"When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so," 

So Francis denies the omnipotence of God?  God is indeed capable of doing everything, and He requires NO WAND do do it ... all He needs is to will it.

homeschoolmom put it well.

God CAN do it however He wants.  It's our human pride that causes us to claim:  "well, this way would be more elegant".  It's no different than the people who might question, say, the requirement of Baptism for salvation, because it doesn't jibe with his preconceptions (Father Laisney, that you?)

Really, who cares what Fr. Laisney thinks?

Father Laisney?

His handlers?

What is today the so-called "Big Bang Theory" (one can thank Sir Fred Hoyle, a skeptic of the theory, for the somewhat derisory name) was actually proposed by Belgian Catholic Priest Father Georges Lemaitre in 1927. Father called it "The Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom". And Fr. L actually intended it to be somewhat similar to what the Prophet Moses taught us by revelation in Genesis.

Unfortunately, atheists and deists, who historically had denied anything like a creation moment, have somewhat warped the "Big Bang Theory" into a naturalistic origin from a supposed singularity where everything breaks down. A much better recent alternative proposed by Creation Scientists is the "Big Stretch".

"As one big bang authority, Andrei Linde, stated: In its standard form, the big bang theory maintains that the universe was born about 15-billion years ago from a cosmological singularity—a state in which the temperature and density are infinitely high. Of course, one cannot really speak in physical terms about these quantities as being infinite. One usually assumes that the current laws of physics did not apply [during the big bang’s rapid expansion—called inflation2]. ... One may wonder, What came before? If space-time did not exist then, how could everything appear from nothing? What arose first: the universe or the laws determining its evolution? Explaining this initial singularity—where and when it all began—still remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology.3 [emphasis added]" ... The stretching proposal, in contrast to the big bang theory, does not begin with a singularity—an infinitesimal point (a mathematical fiction).⁷ Nor does the energy expended in stretching out the heavens mysteriously come from within the universe or during its first trillionth of a trillionth of a ten-billionth of a second (10^-32 second), as with the big bang theory. Energy flowed into the universe as stretching progressed. According to the big bang theory, stars, galaxies, and black holes began forming after 420,000,000 years. According to the stretching explanation, these bodies were present near the beginning of time—early in the creation week. You can decide which explanation the following, surprising evidence supports." http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ14.html

For myself, I have no doubts that Creation was less than 10,000 years ago, the 6 Days in Genesis are literal and that science will eventually catch up to what Scripture and Tradition have revealed to us. Another very interesting discovery of the last 25-30 odd years is what evolutionists call ancient DNA, or a-DNA which they are themselves stumped by, as their models say DNA should not survive more than 10,000 odd years, which is true. They just wrongly assume that millions of ages have passed, and therefore cannot explain their own result; instead of realizing that less than 10,000 years have transpired for this DNA to decay.

"68.  Old DNA, Bacteria, Proteins, and Soft Tissue?
DNA. When an animal or plant dies, its DNA begins decomposing.a Before 1990, almost no one believed that DNA could last 10,000 years.b This limit was based on measuring DNA disintegration rates in well-preserved specimens of known age, such as Egyptian mummies. DNA has now been reported in supposedly a 400,000-year-old hominin femur from Spain,c 17-million-year-old magnolia leaves,d and 11-to-425-million-year-old salt crystals.e Dozens of plants and animals have left DNA in sediments claimed to be 30,000–400,000 years old.f DNA fragments have been found in the scales of a “200-million-year-old” fossilized fishg and possibly in “80-million-year-old” dinosaur bones buried in a coal bed.h Frequently, DNA is found in insects and plants encased in amber samples, assumed to be 25–120-million years old.i" http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences30.html

DNA's half life was calculated by the Journal Nature to be around 521 years. In about 10 half lifes itself (a half life is the period after which only half of the original substance is left, then 25%, then 12.5% etc), the original substance is almost completely deteriorated. It is impossible that DNA survives millions of years. And thus the fact that it is found in very ancient fossils is a clear scientific proof that the earth is indeed <10,000 years young, not the millions of alleged years the evolutionists claim.

Ah, predictably, the neo-SSPX shill has popped in.

Just can't resist taking a cheap shot at the Society and at me, can you, Ladislaus?  

It isn't just the notion of a God-directed drawing of matter from a single particle that's in question with regard to the book.  Please see the  previous threads about this trainwreck of a book; it's Modernist through and through.  That book rejects young-earth theory ... .among many other things that had been taught and believed since the Church Fathers.

I've expressed disagreement with Fr. Robinson before, as you would know, if you had actually read those threads yourself.

But leave that: why don't you first of all affirm that you agree with this, from the Office at Prime on Christmas Eve, posted on the Society website, "One of the hallmarks of the Christmas liturgy according to the traditional Roman Rite is the celebration of three distinct Masses on this day preceded by a Vigil liturgy on Christmas Eve, the highlight of which is the solemn reading of the Martyrology at Prime:

In the year 5199th from the creation of the world, when in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, in the year 2959th from the flood, in the year 2015th from the birth of Abraham, in the year 1510th from the going forth of the people of Israel out of Egypt under Moses, in the year 1032th from the anointing of David as King, in the 65th week according to the prophecy of Daniel, in the 194th Olympiad, in the 752nd from the foundation of the city of Rome, in the 42nd year of the reign of the Emperor Octavian Augustus, in the 6th age of the world, while the whole earth was at peace, Jesus Christ, Himself Eternal God and Son of the Eternal Father, being pleased to hallow the world by His most gracious coming, having been conceived of the Holy Ghost, and when nine months were passed after His conception, [all kneel down] was born of the Virgin Mary at Bethlehem of Juda made Man, Our Lord Jesus Christ was born according to the flesh." https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/spanning-east-and-west-christmas-liturgy

So the Incarnation happened in the year 5199 After Creation, which is 1 B.C., Our Lord being Incarnated in March and born on Dec. 25th. This is in agreement with a literal reading of the genealogies given in Genesis and the rest of Scripture, from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, and from Abraham to Our Lord Jesus. It is the same date of the world's creation given by Bp. Eusebius, who wrote Church history, and which the Lord Jesus and His Blessed Mother also confirmed to Ven. Mary of Agreda as the true year of the world's creation. Ussher's date is basically a miscalculation based on a corrupted text in the Masoretic. Now, Ladislaus, before you go accusing others of Modernism, first tell us, do you yourself believe in young earth? Do that first before you accuse Fr. Robinson of anything.

"138. At the pronouncing of this “fiat,” so sweet to the hearing of God and so fortunate for us, in one instant, four things happened. First, the most holy body of Christ our Lord was formed from the three drops of blood furnished by the heart of most holy Mary. Secondly, the most holy soul of the same Lord was created, just as the other souls. Thirdly, the soul and the body united in order to compose his perfect humanity. Fourthly, the Divinity united Itself in the Person of the Word with the humanity, which together became one composite being in hypostatical union; and thus was formed Christ true God and Man, our Lord and Redeemer. This happened in springtime on the twenty-fifth of March, at break or dawning of the day, in the same hour, in which our first father Adam was made and in the year of the creation of the world 5199, which agrees also with the count of the Roman Church in her Martyrology under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. This reckoning is the true and certain one, as was told me, when I inquired at command of my superiors. Conformable to this the world was created in the month of March, which corresponds to the beginning of creation. And as the works of the Most High are perfect and complete (Deut. 32, 4), the plants and trees come forth from the hands of his Majesty bearing fruit, and they would have borne them continually without intermission, if sin had not changed the whole nature, as I will expressly relate in another treatise, if it is the will of the Lord; now however I will not detain myself therewith, since it does not pertain to our subject."

Ah, predictably, the neo-SSPX shill has popped in.

It isn't just the notion of a God-directed drawing of matter from a single particle that's in question with regard to the book.  Please see the  previous threads about this trainwreck of a book; it's Modernist through and through.  That book rejects young-earth theory ... .among many other things that had been taught and believed since the Church Fathers.

What's your take on humani generis?  

I ask because I don't think you can have "evolution of the human body" and a young earth at the same time, and Pius XII did allow those with competence in science and theology to debate the evolution of the human body within certain parameters.