Shrug, apparently not at the Catholic school I attended. We heard about Mendel and evolution as well, and there were obviously a few teachers/priests who also took an interest in Bible as Literature.
Hogwash. The Catholic Church teaches each individual can take every word of the Bible literally if they wish or follow other, less literal, interpretations.
I take it you have not recently read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
You are confusing - modernized and updated heretic teachings - with the original teachings - and therefore altering the very substance that your belief is based upon.
synapsida.blogspot.com
There is more to the Galileo story and the dispute between him and the Church. Most of the Church hierarchy did not mind Galileo's theories or his expression of them. At the time of Galileo there were very few books and for this reason the Bible was prominent. Galileo insisted the Bible be changed to reflect his theories--for example, any account of the sun moving. The Church was just as insistent that to change the Bible would be heresy. The issue was not over what Galileo was writing, it was that he wanted the Bible to reflect his writing.
That conclusion is over-simplified and probably over emphasizes the effect of science at the expense of translations and evolving language and cultures. Religion is a philosophy relating to behavior while science is the study of our physical world. The Church, in fact, encouraged science, Mendel a primary example of this.
Actually, it is not 'modernization' but a return to the basics--the bare bones--that is useful. Had your priest been well-versed in the original Hebrew, or had knowledge of how the definitions of certain words had changed, I doubt that he would have had trouble with your question. Note, the priests and nuns that taught me had no issue with the same type of question or others.
Then the scientific community needs to be aware of a couple of things. First, it is only a minority of Christians who take literally every word in the Bible. Most do not. Second, the scientific community should already be aware there is a vast difference between philosophy and science.
Meanwhile, here in America in the early 1930s, by Catholic grandmother married an atheist. I did the same in the 1980s. No, such marriages are not encouraged and for good reason.
All throughout history, in every land, time, and culture, people have had experiences of God. These were no more ignored or dismissed than other knowledge. It was not fiction created by mankind, but a reality observed by mankind. Observations...something both religion and science have in common.
Ask Galileo how much the church encouraged his scientific studies
It is certainly not a misunderstanding - the original texts of e.g. the new testimony are stated clear as crystal water can be.
They did encourage his studies. They were against adding his studies to the Bible, which at the time Galileo said was a theory.
Return to the original language which used a word that covered the specifics we break it down into today. 'Brethren' siblings, step-siblings, cousins (including second-third cousins)--all those included in a household arrangement. Why do you think it matters that they be full brother/sisters as we define them today?
Apostolic tradition (in other words before the New Testament was formed) was that Mary had Jesus and then remained celibate. Kind of an odd thing to do at the time and therefore worthy of mention. Personally, I don't think it matters one way or the other. So I note, the king James English suggests Jesus had half-brothers and sisters. The original word was that Jesus grew up among kindred--which at the time included widely extended family members. It is also noted that when Jesus was dying on the cross, he entrusted his mother to John. This simply would not have been done in that society if Mary had birthed other children. She would have naturally been cared for by her second born son.
