I don't doubt that this "new" interpretation is mainstream; it's just not Catholic.  

Today's scholars are no smarter or more enlightened than those who interpreted the scriptures hundreds of years ago; indeed, the farther we go in time, the more disconnected the scholars are from what the intentions of the Gospel writers may have been.  

To suggest that these interpretations are new is just silly; symbolism and spiritualism are nothing new.  These interpretations were surely considered and rejected by scholars long ago, and nothing has changed to warrant revisiting the Church's long-held teaching on these matters.   New is not always better or more correct, but that's a common misunderstanding of progressives.  They think that they're so much smarter than everyone else and everyone who came before them.