[highball]

This is why he got into trouble, not because Rome felt it his theory has heretical.

If that was true, why didn't the Church admit its mistake when the evidence was clear? How long did it take for the Church to admit it was wrong about him, again?

Answer: it wasn't about any lack of evidence. It was about contradicting Church dogma. Fortunately, the men currently at the head of the Church aren't so anti-science as their forerunners.

[curiosity]

If that was true, why didn't the Church admit its mistake when the evidence was clear?

It did, sort of, in 1758, removing Copernicus and Kepler from the index and allowing free dissemination of all heliocentric books except Galileo's. That remained on the index longer, probably because of sour grapes. It is a pretty arogant and insulting work.

Answer: it wasn't about any lack of evidence. It was about contradicting Church dogma.

Sorry, but that doesn't square with the historical data either. Copernicus presented his model in Rome, to clerics, several times and sufferend no repercussions. Until Galileo's time, his book received no censure, and his Bishop was the one encouraging him to publish it.

Fortunately, the men currently at the head of the Church aren't so anti-science as their forerunners.

The Church was never anti-science. It overreacted in response to Galileo, but that's about the only example in which the Church even comes close to being anti-science.

[1stFreedom]

If that was true, why didn't the Church admit its mistake >>when the evidence was clear? How long did it take for the Church to admit it was wrong about him, again?

You miss the point, the Church wasn't wrong about him at all. The opposition wasn't to the theory, but to the attitude and arrogance of Galelio.

>>It was about contradicting Church dogma.

By this sentence, I can tell you don't know whaht dogma means..

>>Fortunately, the men currently at the head of the Church aren't so anti-science as their forerunners.

LOL, why do you think Galelio went to Rome to present his theories? Because the Church WAS the epicenter of science during those times. Many priests were scientists, and many Bishops were very supportive of science.

I suggest you read this book: "How the Catholic Church built western civilization" by Thomas E. Woods -- you'll understand just how much the Church promoted science, despite the tired and disproven arguments of the anti-catholic movement..