Among other things, it was a violation of the idea of a naturally existing hierarchy, an idea which Christianity had fully adopted from Platonism or neo-Platonism through the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (late 5th c.) and St. Augustine of Hippo.

This view of the universe orders the world into spheres of descending quality until one arrives at the Earth (or Hell, beyond), like Russian nesting dolls. This sort of natural hierarchy of spheres is fairly well expressed in Cicero's Somnium scipionis (Scipio's Dream). Such a hierarchy of spheres mirrors Pseudo-Dionysius' angelic hierarchy, and also the hierarchy of the Church itself. The same basic premise is even at play in Dante's Inferno.

To people with this sort of world-view, placing the sun in the center makes no sense and contravenes the idea of a perfectly ordered divine plan in which everything is a typological reading for the relationship of man to the divine. In a reality constructed in such a way, Heliocentrism is effectively chaos and goes against all reason and logic.

To this question I have to ask back, Was it?

It's not hard to find posts arguing that the RCC was not as hostile to heliocentrism as commonly believed and that Galileo's case is misinterpreted and blown out of proportion. This one came just yesterday.

You are correct that heliocentrism originated with pagan natural philosophers, but scholastic theology has so completely merged christian theology with Aristotle that a challenge to to heliocentrism couldn't be isolated from a challenge to the whole system of christian thought.

I'm trying to think of a good parallel but I'm coming up blank.