> But as a Catholic priest, he must have deeply believed in the moment of Creation as described in Genesis.
Catholicism permits a literal interpretation of creation in Genesis, but does not require it. Debates regarding literal vs allegorical interpretations of Genesis and similar biblical narratives go back at least as far as the 2nd century. For example, Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD), one of the earliest Christian theologians, argued that the 7 days of creation were allegorical. AFAIU, allegorical interpretations of Genesis began to predominate in mainstream Christianity rather quickly, though even in Catholicism today there are literalists.
Some narratives are interpreted literally, but not in the obvious sense. For example, AFAIU "God created man in his image" was never interpreted by most Christians to mean physical image, but rather in the sense of moral consciousness, etc, and today (and perhaps even originally) interpretation as physical similarity would be, I think, heretical. Such nuance in meaning and implication is important for understanding, for example, the Galileo Affair, as well as the far more minor debates regarding the Big Bang (were there any major debates?). Also, because at any one point there's always some kind of literal vs allegorical debate within the context of the current Overton Window, someone's feathers always seem to get ruffled no matter the topic.
Thank you for all that great context. For what it's worth, as I study my religion more, I get a deeper appreciation for the non literal interpretations. After all what does it mean to have 6 days of creation when the sun wasn't even around for some of the days.
I do think "created" vs "always been there" is a pretty good definition of the chasm between religious and scientific views before the big bang
These debates between the created vs the eternal are all over the place in Christianity, not to mention most other religions.
Excluding all the gnostic and neoplatonist sects, one of the first big fights in Christianity was between the Arians and what would become mainline Christianity. It concerned whether Jesus was eternal or created. (Excuse me if that's a botched gloss.) The Arians believed Jesus was created, albeit before time. The orthodox Christians insisted Jesus was eternal and uncreated, though the Nicene Creed (drafted to refute and fight Arianism) uses the curious phrasing "eternally begotten". That and similar debates resulted in a ridiculously complex and fascinating ontology around ideas of substance, time, and creation.
EDIT: FWIW, for similar, non-Christian debates see, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash%27arism vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutazilism That's still Abrahamic and Greek-adjacent, though, which I think maybe results in a preoccupation with these questions, as compared to some other traditions which don't find them very interesting.
Catholicism permits a literal interpretation of creation in Genesis, but does not require it. Debates regarding literal vs allegorical interpretations of Genesis and similar biblical narratives go back at least as far as the 2nd century. For example, Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD), one of the earliest Christian theologians, argued that the 7 days of creation were allegorical. AFAIU, allegorical interpretations of Genesis began to predominate in mainstream Christianity rather quickly, though even in Catholicism today there are literalists.
Some narratives are interpreted literally, but not in the obvious sense. For example, AFAIU "God created man in his image" was never interpreted by most Christians to mean physical image, but rather in the sense of moral consciousness, etc, and today (and perhaps even originally) interpretation as physical similarity would be, I think, heretical. Such nuance in meaning and implication is important for understanding, for example, the Galileo Affair, as well as the far more minor debates regarding the Big Bang (were there any major debates?). Also, because at any one point there's always some kind of literal vs allegorical debate within the context of the current Overton Window, someone's feathers always seem to get ruffled no matter the topic.