Well, you're talking about whether science conflicts with religious experience, and you say they're complementary. The problem I'm raising in the article is that science has impacted Catholicism for the worse because the Church has tried to compete with the rigor of science and philosophy with systematic theology that turns out to be merely casuistic and sophistical. It's a case of fallacious pseudoscience.
The use of "heresy" comes across now as archaic, tin-eared, and authoritarian. The Church used to punish "heretics" who turned out to be blameless because the charges were trumped up and fantastical. In using that term, you're insinuating that the new heretics are guilty by association with the old ones. Yet the old ones turned out to be essentially innocent (or at least hardly demonic) because of the liberal triumph of people's humanistic right to free speech. Thus, the new "heretics" must be as blameless as the old ones.
You're also assuming the Bible is the best thing ever written. That's like a Star Trek fan presupposing that everyone should care as much about Star Trek novels and movies as he or she does. It looks like an oversight of a fanboy.
My other recent article on the Pope's concession to secularization pursues this point.
