Taken from the Catholic Herald (a thoroughly Modernist newspaper, I cannot think why I wandered on there).

I was accused of Modernism for the following statements - I give the whole discussion (my own posts are in bold)  

I commented:
There is every contradiction, thank God [between Darwinism and Catholicism - is this the problematic part? I attempted to explain it]. Creation is de fide - not evolutionary bilge-water. Evolution is utter, utter bilge and condemned again and again. Sacred Scripture is inerrant. The infallible teaching of the Church runs as follows - that the world was created in six days and roughly, I think, 6000 years old.

[deleted quote]

You are a Modernist heretic.
May God have mercy on your soul and I pray that He will have.

For condemning evolution? Modernism? Please do explain. I have done NOTHING but defend the literal meaning of Scripture - that the world was created ex nihilo in six days. It would be modernist, surely, to say it wasn't created in six days. The Bible is perfectly clear. Need I quote the Book of Genesis?

I understand that Modernism is a heresy that denies the truth of dogma. I have, I think and hope, done nothing but defend the truth of the Catholic dogma of creation against the lie of evolution. The Council of Trent defined once more that the Bible contains no errors, it is historically and scientifically true.

I deleted the perhaps problematic quote from the Kolbe Centre, who for all I know may not be Traditional, but evolution IS condemned. I pray there is merely a misunderstanding, but look here:

If you take an objection to my statement that Darwinism and Catholicism contradict each other, I have corrected the phrasing. I did not mean that Catholicism is false. I meant that Darwinism cannot be reconciled with Catholicism - that Darwinism is entirely false - I did
call it bilge thrice - and Catholicism entirely true. Dr. Darwin's theory 'contradicts' an inerrant docuмent. It can't - you can't contradict something inerrant. Darwin's ludicrous doctrine, therefore, is false.

I appeal to any poster here to indicate my terrible mistake. I also appeal to Cardinal Ruffini's 'Evolution Judged by Reason and Faith' to justify a complete rejection of evolution as nonsense and will repeat this post to try to clear up any mistakes. I cannot see a jot of Modernism, so please do tell me where it lies.

I pray so also, as I meant neither heresy nor error and will happily be corrected on any errant point.

I understand that Modernism is a heresy that denies the truth of dogma

Only insofar as ALL heresy denies the truth of Dogma, so that this definition is utterly useless to define the nature of any individual heresies.

Modernism is the heresy whereby personal opinion (individual or collective), of whatever nature, is held to be of a higher value than the doctrine and teachings of the Church.

We have been plagued by this heresy since roughly the end of the 15th century, though it has become aggressively rampant throughout Western society during the 20th and 21st centuries.

The Church has ALWAYS had a complex interpretation of the Creation story in Genesis, as the Jews also did prior to the Incarnation. This complex interpretation is correct Catholic dogma, NOT the simplex literalist interpretation of Young Earth Creationism, which is a doctrine that was invented in the 19th century, by Protestants.

To teach that only ONE personal interpretation of a complex question is accurate, and that all other interpretations are therefore false, is exactly Modernist.

Now, firstly, I was too impetuous in using Cardinal Ruffini, who, after a long time, I have the haziest ideas of what conclusions the good prelate drew beyond that evolution was bilge. I'm entirely incompetent to act on evolution, as I never actually thought about it beyond that the Scriptural account is completely true. I understand from the poster that my errant point was either young-Earth creationism or holding young-Earth creationism to be dogmatic - although I cannot say I knew it was taught by Protestants. It seemed simple sense to me. Have I in fact committed heresy and wherein? The chap who accused me of heresy defended evolution, so the waters are for my simple mind a little muddy.

Naturally, the thought of being an occult heretic for all of these years is pretty nasty - although I thought I was entirely orthodox, so I imagine it does not carry the guilt of mortal sin? Naturally I submit any and all errant opinions for judgement.

If it is heresy, would anyone mind telling me what the Catholic position (this 'complex position' is?

Heresy is when you adhere to an opinion that is contrary to dogma.     There is no official doctrine on creation, there is only certain requirements one must believe for people that want to believe in evolution.    You're safe. You're free to believe the Earth was created in 6 days and you're free to criticize evolution.
 
Modernism is an intellectual movement that undermines the Catholic faith. Evolution in its atheistic form does just that.

So, from the two of you, I've been, to put in bluntly, spun a yarn by a Modernist? Hardly surprising, serves me right for being an ass enough to go on a Modernist newspaper. I've deleted my 'disqus' account so I can't again and I shall mention reading it in Confession, but nothing worse than being taken in? That's right, yes?

Thank you - so I only erred (and not heretically) in saying that the Church had infallibly defined the age of the Earth etc. I thought Leo XIII as good as did (our first parents...the slime of the Earth)but of course that's not the age.