The poster I responded to claimed that the priests of the Church of Rome "invented the scientific method." If the first claim was not the most ridiculous lie ever told on behalf of a church that actively suppressed scientific investigation for most of its history, the second most certainly was.
The article names a lot of scientists who were Roman adherents. Of course those scientists came into the world during a time when you were born into an unquestioning superstition, which, if you publicly voiced your doubts, murdered you.
We can conjecture about whether Descartes [for example] would have been a Romanist in the 21st century. It would be largely fruitless, but I think based on the number of contemporary scientists actually named in the article the answer is pretty obvious. The article, for example, falsely claims that Erwin Scrhoedinger was Catholic. He might very well have been baptized in the Church, since his father was a Roman Catholic, but he was a very famously self avowed atheist. A moment's verification would have saved the article writer that embarrassment.
The church held the scientists it sponsored accountable for the quality of their research.
If by that you mean, "expected them to support the phoney baloney superstitions of the Magisterium," then we are in full agreement.
But let's just take the case of Galileo for a moment. Even three hundred and fifty years after condemning Galileo for speaking the truth, the Roman church couldn't quite get the apology right. John Paul II went as far as to say that the men who condemned him were acting on the basis of "what was scientifically known at the time." No such thing. Galileo didn't just support the Copernican System because of its theoretical elegance compared to the tortured ad hoc monstrosity that it replaced. He also had experimental evidence that it was true, for his observations of Jupiter's moons. The best science available at the time was on Galileo's side, not the pope's, and the evil clerics who forced an old man to recant under the threat of torture and murder had no interest in science.
The point remains that there is no opposition between science and Catholic religion; you can speculate all you want what Descartes would have been in the 21 century, and I can speculate what Europe would have been without Catholic monasteries and universities.
Galileo’s research was evaluated based on “what was scientifically known at the time”, exactly so. As opposed to what we think should have been evident in hindsight.