I don't have an issue with the statement that "We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision". In that way, we are certainly not inerrantists (though we certainly affirm the Scripture's infallibility). However, what I would have a problem with, if the article was accurately reporting the facts, is this type of thing:
"But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”." (emphasis added)
Insist? Cannot? At most? Seems rather modernistic to me. Since when has the Church (or the RCC) "insisted" that the creation story in Genesis absolutely "cannot" be historical? If this is true, then they have simply avoided the trap of Protestant Fundamentalist wooden literalism by embracing Liberal Protestant criticism/naturalism.