Why should the Church have to prove that which had been accepted and "proven" for nearly 1500 years? The burden of proof was on Galileo, as he was challenging the scientific standard.
The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence
Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment
So, 500+ years ago, if I were to logically, rationally, and analytically think about it, it would seem that the Earth didn't move; Common sense would back up that assertion, as I don't feel like I am moving, and the Earth doesn't show it, so it must be that I am still. Again, HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE is useful...
Galileo peered through a telescope, right. Then when he was challenged, he offered no concrete evidence, something which would have been helpful, to say the least, as it flies in the face of REASON and COMMON SENSE that he was right, not to mention it was contrary to 1500 years of accepted and "proven" scientific knowledge. Now, if he had said look, this telescope backs me up, as does this and this, and this law of Gravity that Newton will develop in 100 years, and this idea about orbits Kepler has already developed &c... we'd not be having this discussion.
Perhaps I shouldn't have said it so simply--a telescope alone does not do the trick because you can't see the Earth moving, you can see everything around the Earth moving. Reason would say, OK, this is compelling, I wonder what other evidence I can find.
Again, GALILEO WAS RIGHT--he was not wrong in his Copernican assertion. The ONLY issue I see here, and the only thing with which I have a problem is that you seem to think he should have been showered with accolades for NOT proving his assertion--he made a compelling case, but not until Newton 100 years later and parallaxes &c even later was he DEFINITIVELY vindicated. He submitted himself to the Church's authority, so that is a non-issue. He was criticized by his fellow scientists. He had not presented sufficient evidence to overturn 1500 years of accepted and "proven" scientific "fact". Why do you require the Church prove that which had already been "proven"?