Can the Magisterium's fallible acts harm souls, given John Paul II's support for evolution?

I know a lot of things the Church does that harm souls; I see it in front of me all the time. Here you have to distinguish a pope's pious opinion from an infallible statement. The only likely infallible statement John Paul II made in his twenty-six years was Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, barring women from the priesthood, and even that is still contested, because the language did not clearly follow the four criteria of Pastor Aeternus, so Ratzinger had to come out and say it was infallible, but he is not the pope. By contrast, his ideas on evolution were a pious opinion. In 1992, before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, he said evolution is 'more than a hypothesis,' but that was a speech, not a doctrinal forum, and it was ambiguous. What does 'more than a hypothesis' mean? Does it reach the level of a theory? You cannot throw out such terms and expect everyone to know the difference without a clear definition. An infallible statement, like Pius XII's definition of the Assumption, is clear and leaves no room for ambiguity, but this was not. Moreover, he was surrounded by a Pontifical Academy that had already refused to admit creationists, so he was hearing only one side. So yes, a pope can harm souls when he gives a pious opinion with nothing to back it up but his opinion. But the only person actually harmed is someone who does not know his Catholic faith; if you know your faith, statements like that just roll off your shoulder.