Here is what I think is a relatively unbiased account of the matter. Everybody got egg on their faces, IMHO.
Dammit, Burn, if I didn't like you.... well, I don't have anything to finish that with.
C'mon, the best unbiased account is the actual translation of the judgment against Galileo, isn't it? Did you read it? How can you still possibly still hold that the Church - as an entity - didn't have a major role in opposing Galileo's Copernican theory advancement? It says nothing against you, specifically. Stop being defensive. :-D
And hell yes, plenty of non-devouts might've balked at heliocentricity back then, too. But you can't deny the Church's involvement! Also, I've had a strong 151-n-coke on a very empty stomach so I'm probably not cohesive thru my argument here. Aarrgh!
As a matter of critical thinking I should admit that I discovered something about myself in this whole ordeal. And this might be to my own detriment but alky makes me more honest (or stupid) so I think it should be said. Once I state an argument for my perspective, I realize that I start searching for additional supporting material. Don't we all? Who wants to look like an idiot and be proven wrong. Nonetheless, my goal is to avoid that shit. But if I get something right at least let me have a tiny victory for my argument.
Stilll I want to identify occasions when I do that I stop it. So I'm backing out of this to find neutral ground amd make sure I'm not just using confirmation bias.
Goodwill to you, sir. I'll hit you back when I'm sober and realize that I've showed my hand and then I'll be pissed.