Well no, on examination my statement stands up pretty well on it's own. Were I you, I wouldn't be overly proud of the fact that, in a regime where if you are literate, chances are the Pope paid for your schooling, and where not to be Catholic or to disagree with the Papal version of science gets you burned at the stake like Geordono Bruno, or sentenced for life like Galileo, or hounded into exile like Spinoza, that pretty much everybody is officially catholic, and officially agrees with the Pope and the head of the inquisition wholeheartedly.
I also could officially win every argument on FR, and and ban whoever I wanted, if I was allowed to threaten my opponents and the FR classroom monitors with burning at the stake. And then FR would be officially donh'ish, and then I could constitute the reading and thinking population of FR, and be officially offended everytime a modern Galileo tried to post here.
Somehow I see a pattern where university and public school classrooms are concerned, natural selection and random mutation being the ultimate trump card that "wins every argument."
Many within the Catholic Church of Galileo's day welcomed his discoveries. I would not be surprised if he had more friends than enemies within the church. His enemies acted not entirely out of disrespect for scientific truth, and partly in response to Galileo's arrogant tone. To the end he maintained respect for the church, and for the universe he saw as a creation of God.
Your understanding of the studies, effects, and trial of Galileo is skewed from the inside. You would rather not admit that a.) the church was in large part a champion of science at the time, and b.) science was clinging to Aristotelian dogma like most of the rest of the world.