Point taken about Lemaitre, thanks for that quote.
However, was the Church really “being wrong” and “insisting” that the earth was the center of the Universe?”
Geocentrism was a scientific theory not a theological one. The Church theologized it for sure (e.g. Dante), but that was more because it simply accepted the science of the day than it came up with all this stuff on its own. And there was very good evidence to suggest that geocentrism was right—how could they know, for instance, that the “gravity well” of the Earth did not extend out forever, when everything about the motions of the planets could be explained with spheres and epicycles, when there was no observable stellar parallax, and when they couldn’t see any body orbiting another in space? (Remember—Galileo seeing the moons orbiting Jupiter is what convinced him).
Also, if you read the Divine Comedy there is a very interesting passage where Dante passes the sphere of the fixed stars (I think), and suddenly the whole world looks to him inverted, with God at the center and the universe on the periphery. This, he learns, is because he is now looking at a deeper reality with spiritual eyes and not physical ones. And of course who did he put at the center of the Earth but Satan? So as far as medieval theology was concerned, the earth wasn’t really at the “center” of the Universe, it was at the “bottom” of the Universe—the plughole into which all corruptible things fell.
If anything, I think the geocentrism episode underscores exactly what Lemaitre was trying to say—that the Church ought not wed itself too tightly to scientific theories.
“The Church theologized (geocentrism) for sure, but that was more because it simply accepted the science of the day...”
That seems reasonable and probable. The Biblical story of creation likewise no doubt reflects the “science” of the day. Do you think that where the Bible is in conflict with the science of the day, the Church should adjust its teachings likewise?