A man from Regina in Saskatchewan wrote:

According to the popular version of this story, the Church taught that the sun orbited the earth because Scripture says it does and Galileo proved otherwise. The Church imprisoned Galileo for teaching this heretical doctrine and is still wiping egg of its face all these centuries later.

Almost none of this is true.

In fact, St. Robert Bellarmine, the head of the Holy Office of the Inquisition during the Galileo case agreed with Galileo that, if the science demonstrated it, certain passages of Scripture that seem to indicate that the sun orbits the earth would have to be reinterpreted! He was sure that faith and science could not contradict one another, and he also knew that having the sun as the center of the solar system was not an essential truth of the faith. The question for Bellarmine was not how to stop Galileo, but whether or not Galileo had proved his hypothesis.

It is easy to forget that the idea that the sun orbited the earth was not a religious doctrine, but rather the state of the question in astronomy that pre-existed the Church. The Ptolemaic system was the best available explanation of the movement of heavenly bodies as yet discovered and would need significant refuting to be overthrown.

Can Catholics Believe in Evolution?
Admin for the site of the Archdiocese of Regina / Brett Salkeld
https://archregina.sk.ca/blog_ministry/can-catholics-believe-evolution/

So, let's get through this. Bit by bit.

• According to the popular version of this story, the Church taught that the sun orbited the earth because Scripture says it does
  
  The Book of Joshua, chapter 10, and comments in the book of Habacuc, and exegesis of Church Fathers all agree that it was Sun and Moon that normally moved, and that it was these that stopped moving on Joshua's orders, not the Earth that stopped rotating.
  
  
• and Galileo proved otherwise.
  
  I'm glad Brett Salkeld agrees that Galileo hadn't proved otherwise. Neither has anyone else since then.
  
  
• The Church imprisoned Galileo for teaching this heretical doctrine
  
  In fact, for having taught it. He abjured and even after that remained a prisoner (in gentle home arrest, and visitors severely culled) for the rest of his life for this fact. Pretending this happened purely for a concern for science, is pretending the Church back then sacralised it as much as Communists and similarly minded Atheists sacralise it now.
  
  
• and is still wiping egg of its face all these centuries later.
  
  Unfortunately, Brett Salkeld looks like he is intent on "wiping eff of the face of the Church" by denying the obvious.
  
  
• In fact, St. Robert Bellarmine, the head of the Holy Office of the Inquisition during the Galileo case agreed with Galileo that, if the science demonstrated it, certain passages of Scripture that seem to indicate that the sun orbits the earth would have to be reinterpreted!
  
  As far as I recall, St. Robert first expressed that in a hypothetical, and then immediately added "but I do not think it so can be proven" — and the question was not really even of "reinterpreting certain passages" but of for the future (as some seem to be doing in the service of evolution) looking for every possible way of letting a Bible passage anywhere off the hook of its obvious and traditional interpretation. He was less grudgingly admitting (for such a hypothetic case) the need to reinterpret those passages, than complaining (again, for such a hypothetic case) the loss of exegetic innocence and ease.
  
  For reference for the next parts, he was only head of the Holy Office during the first Galileo case, the one in the 1610's, which condemned his book The Assayer.
  
  
• He was sure that faith and science could not contradict one another, and he also knew that having the sun as the center of the solar system was not an essential truth of the faith.
  
  He was sure that the faith and proven fact cannot contradict one another. Let's recall, his precise words are about proven fact. The problem is, the modern usage of the word science is taking this to be the corpus of output of a special caste of people known as scientists, or at least positions typical of the majority output of them. Obviously, insofar as any such body existed in St. Robert's day, it was one of Geocentrics.
  
  
• The question for Bellarmine was not how to stop Galileo, but whether or not Galileo had proved his hypothesis.
  
  He was theoretically willing to give The Assayer a pass, if Galileo could actually prove his hypothesis. But in the second trial, Galileo's personal freedom was basically already forfeited for relapsing into this position. However, the Church had no discipline and still has no discipline, at least officially, of gaoling people for stating things they haven't proven. It's not an equivalent to the English "law of libel" — as for instance the Achilli trial judges censoring John Henry Newman:
  
  

  Following the first edition, a number of paragraphs were removed following the Achilli trial as "they were decided by a jury to constitute a libel, June 24, 1852."

  
  
  While stating sth bad about a person in English law has to be proven or removed, the Church had no such policy about the reputation of science. If you in 1700 in any work stated that William Harvey's discovery was bunk, while it was certainly accepted by all medical doctors at that point, no one in the Church would have dreamed of gaoling you for disagreeing with science, or for making a statement that not only you hadn't proven, but never could prove.
  
  The Church's one and only gaoling policy in intellectual affairs was about heresy, in some cases even repented heresy.
  
  
• It is easy to forget that the idea that the sun orbited the earth was not a religious doctrine, but rather the state of the question in astronomy that pre-existed the Church.
  
  Given no Heliocentric had had any direct trouble with the Church just for being so prior to a Dominican noticing what Galileo did in exegesis, which is precisely a religious question, this is incorrect.
  
  By the way, the term "sun orbits the earth" is chosing terms that are rich in misunderstanding.
  
  
  • In modern physics, "X orbits Y" tends to refer to a Newtonian process, by which X and Y in diverse measure orbit a central point, and the wording X orbits Y refers to the case when the central point is either inside Y or very close to Y, but very far from X, which Newtonian process can only happen in the case of Y being more massive than X. However, no Newtonian physics entered the discussion, and a modern Geocentric would not say that Earth is more massive or that the Sun is directed partly by its inertia and partly by the inward pull of Earth, but rather that Earth's stability is due to some fact stronger than such factors (if either God or an angel for each day causes the Sun to pull graviationally on Earth from all sides, the pull it exerts at 3 am will be neutralised by the pull it exerts at 3 pm (of a given time zone). Or the pull it exerts on Sao Paolo at noon in Sao Paolo, will be neutralised by the pull it exerts on Honshu at noon in Honshu. The Sun will not to us anymore than to Sts Aquinas and Bellarmine be moving daily around earth because of any stronger pull that Earth is exerting on it, but due to other actors.
  • In Riccioli's astronomy, it would be correct to state that an angel is taking the Sun on kind of a daily orbit around earth, so that its longer orbit around the zodiac each year is incidental on this daily orbit lagging behind the daily orbits of stars in the zodiac. But in St. Thomas view, the angel would only be taking the Sun on a yearly orbit around the zodiac, and another one be taking the Moon on a monthly one around the zodiac, while the daily turn was God turning all of the heavens below the Empyrean one around earth, and orbits happen inside that turn.
  
  
  
• The Ptolemaic system was the best available explanation of the movement of heavenly bodies as yet discovered and would need significant refuting to be overthrown.
  
  Two problems with this one:
  
  
  • There was no scientific community, there was no obligation to have a good or "the best" explanation, society at large and the Church too was not bound in a tielock to astronomy;
  • In fact, St. Robert agreed that Galileo very much had disproven parts of the Ptolemaic system. Just that the Ptolemaic system wasn't the only option for Geocentrism, and Galileo was far from having refuted the position of Tycho Brahe. So are people after his time, the one argument I keep hearing is from Newtonian physics taken as not just a factor that exists, but as the only factor that can affect anything as large and not bound onto a bigger flat surface as Earth or "other" heavenly bodies.

The upshot of this being, no, Galileo was not primarily tried for scientific bad methodology, but for religious bad ideas.

The Church was indeed not "against science" in the Galileo episode, but neither was She acting primarily for science. Galileo really was obliged to abjure what amounted, and still amounts, to bad theology.
/Hans Georg Lundahl