Hence, why I made the qualifier "I know this example isn't quite the same." But you're right, it's not a theological issue. [Side note: Major opened up a can of worms about RCC theological issues in post #17 in the Bible Study/A Church Whose Teachings... thread. I'd be really interested in your response to those.] But it is a function of the Roman Catholic Church taking absurd positions in areas in which it shouldn't.
As for your statement about the RCC's position on the heliocentric model, I hadn't quite heard that version of things before. Everything I've read told a different story, but let's say for a moment you are correct - what is the implication of that then? Now the RCC are the Science Dicipline Police? We put a scientist on house arrest for the remainder of his life because we don't like his methods?
Indeed, you did say it was stretching it, so I'll certainly give you that.
Can you give an example of where the Catholic Church took absurd positions in which it shouldn't? If you mean in terms of something like science, they don't take definite positions. For example, while the Church (ie, clergy and some of its predecessors) have embraced the certain scientific theories, they don't treat it like a doctrine or dogma. It makes no difference whether a religious or secular were to agree with certain scientific theories or not.
But maybe you meant something else.
Indeed, there is a lot about the history of the Catholic Church that either gets twisted or overlooked. One of my favorite books that also provided a lot of citing is a book called
The Catholic Church: Builder of Western Civilization by a historian named Thomas E. Woods (and his TV special by the same name which can be seen on YouTube also). There is a lot mistaken, like that the Inquisition was an effort to force conversions or that the Crusades was aggression from the Christians on the Turks.
The story of Galileo is often twisted outrageously. The Catholic Church promoted science as a discipline, not just a practice as it was before -- the overall idea to have a better understanding of creation to better understand the creator. (Back in the 7th century, science was basically just astronomy, coming from the old Greek disciplines). Would this be a valid reason to hold Galileo under house arrest? I'd say no, and the Church has come forward and said apologized and said it could have been handled better without doing that. It wasn't so much that they assumed position as Scientific Discipline police, but that they were funding Galileo's work, especially since Galileo expressed to the Church that they could prove the Copernican theory that Earth revolved around the sun. The Church and Galileo had a split because the Church was looking for absolute proof while Galileo was claiming his theory as fact. Granted, Galileo was right, but in those times, there was no space exploration and so there was difficulty in finding sound evidence.
Galileo's trial was brief, and while the Church has said it should have been handled differently, he was certainly not treated inhumanely. He was put up in a villa, had servants, a chef, and was even free from house arrest a bit later. Galileo went back to his work in science and continued his practices in Catholicism. He was never excommunicated, under house arrest for life, tortured, beaten, killed, or anything of that nature by the Catholic Church, and they even continued funding his work.
The whole deal with the Church hating science or that they hated Galileo and excommunicated him is one of the many anti-Catholic myths that continues to float around and are taught in universities.
