The Bible it's self states that days are meaningless to God
Do you have a biblical reference for this claim? Days might be meaningless to God because he is thought to be eternal, but the biblical narrative explicitly mentions that the world took seven days for creation. If the bible was written for humans, why would God create an ambiguity here? Either the world was created in seven days or it wasn't. If not, then the Bible is misleading and deceptive, which a supposedly perfect God wouldn't be.
Many of the Old Testament stories can be viewed as figurative, while the New Testament is the absolute word
This seems to be very convenient. Many Christians do not view the old testament as figurative, but as the actual word of God to be taken literally.
To view some stories and teachings as figurative and others as not is arbitrary and disingenuous. Who gets to decide what is figurative and what is not? If it's the pope, it's only insfar as he is considered to be God's representative on earth and as such is infallible.
Evolution doesn't contradict biblical teaching.
It does contradict it in my opinion. Genesis explicitly states:
"Then God commanded, "Let the water be filled with many kinds of living beings, and let the air be filled with birds." 21 So God created the great sea monsters, all kinds of creatures that live in the water, and all kinds of birds. And God was pleased with what he saw. 22 He blessed them all and told the creatures that live in the water to reproduce and to fill the sea, and he told the birds to increase in number. 23 Evening passed and morning came—that was the fifth day.
24 Then God commanded, "Let the earth produce all kinds of animal life: domestic and wild, large and small"—and it was done. 25 So God made them all, and he was pleased with what he saw."
"Then God said, "And now we will make human beings; they will be like us and resemble us. They will have power over the fish, the birds, and all animals, domestic and wild, large and small."
How is this compatible with the modern theory of evolution by natural selection and common descent? To think that it is compatible requires a lot of cognitive dissonance and textual/exegetical distortions.
He is also not chosen by God, he is elected
The holy spirit (part of the trinity) is thought to work through the cardinals (who also somehow conveniently retain free will) in choosing the pope, which is indicated by the fumata, which is the burning of ballots cast, resulting either in black smoke (failed election) or white smoke (successful election of a new pope).
He can give his opinion on things, but this is merely his opinion and not the church's as a whole, he is a man, not God.
The pope's 'opinion' becomes de facto church doctrine, insofar as papal infallibility is concerned. Of course he is not a dictator, and bishops, priests and clergy are free to believe what they want within the ideological limits of their faith and official positions, but his views are considered infallible insofar as catholics think he has been elected by God and is considered his representative on earth. Papal infallibility is a foundation of Catholic dogma.
The amount of doublethink, cognitive dissonance and cognitive bias that goes on in Catholicism (and most other religions to be fair) is considerable imo, but almost by definition those guilty of it are not really aware of it. The mind is a very effective device when it comes to compartmentalizing, disconnecting and distorting incompatible beliefs, filing inconvenient facts away from conscious awareness or even denying their status as facts by selectively utilizing epistemological skepticism etc.