There were lots of different translations (from latin) of the bible in the middle ages, look it up. The objections of the Catholic church was not translations per se, but rather the hugely different versions written by people not fluent in latin or simply that the native language wasn't sufficiently developed to encompass the nuances and full meanings of the latin version (Biblia vulgata).

See for example Cambridge History of the Bible: "the vernacular appeared simply and totally inadequate. Its use, it would seem, could end only in a complete enfeeblement of meaning and a general abasement of values. Not until a vernacular is seen to possess relevance and resources, and, above all, has acquired a significant cultural prestige, can we look for acceptable and successful translation."

Also, the notion of the medieval period as a backward and simpleminded period has been thoroughly revised by historians. It is quite ironic that for example the "burning century" (witchhunts) was between 1550-1650, and that witches and magic was deemed as superstition during most of the middle ages.

I would also point out that the Catholic church interprets Genesis symbolically and not literally. The view that the earth was created in 7 days is held solely by (some) protestants.

Lastly I must mention that the notion of "medieval notions of planetary [...] origins was not developed by the church, but was based on aristotelic theories from the classical period, which ironically, was the period the so-called age of enlightenment defined itself a continuation of a.k.a. the Renaissance.