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..
Karma runs over Dogma placemark
A common insult used whenever someone points out that there have previously been men in charge of the Church who loved power more than truth.
As I keep saying, it is fortunate that the current stewards of the Church aren't so petty as to ignore their mistakes for centuries lest they admit them.