Encyclopedia Britannica advises that in a book setting forth ideas through different characters in a conversation, as a method communication to the public at large, Galileo puts in the mouth of a misled character the view on the astronomical topic involved, held by the pope. Apparently, in Creation Magazine, or at least in the view expressed in No. 4,2020,  this is regarded as being 'insulting' to the pope.

It is however a matter of characterising different astronomical views and not a merely personal assault. The issue is still astronomy and reform because of what he had discovered on his telescope and the result a complicated method of ecclesiastical suppression. For the scientist, it was an endeavour to get through with the truth, whatever side results may have occurred. True. he had been commanded by the Pope to make his publication of his views merely hypothetical, but to whatever extent he may have failed in this, it was still an ecclesiastical command in the first place to inhibit his work. He had even been sent to be examined by the Inquisition of murderous reputation. Moreover the issue was not whether he had told the exact position, though he appears to have striven hard to do so, but not being an Encyclopedia of science, being rather a developing astronomer, what he held. He was one, of some depth, emphasis on scientific method and originality with emphasis on discovery, not philosophy, which in the case of Romanism secured considerable interest in Aristotle.

Rome threatened him, warned him, limited him and after some play with Cardinal Bellarmine, condemned HIS VIEW AS closely connected with heresy. Again, there is omission of this aspect in the reference to Rome and Galileo in the magazine noted.

Rome decided to issue condemnation status on  Galileo with his progressive view, the result being to limit and harass him, and to insult him as a vehemently suspected heretic. Inquisition consultants had already accounted the Copernican theory heretical. Indeed, Galileo was compelled to abjure his personal, view of the issue, a sufficient indication of utter condemnation of his theory. Galileo, Britannica advises on review, was "effectively muzzled on the Copernican issue," one of his preference, and "only slowly did he recover from this setback. After all, advice from Bellarmine "not to hold, teach, or defend" the Copernican theory "in any way whatever, either orally or in writing" was a tremendous backward thrust and burden. It was not science that did that.

It may be true that some in the religious body of Rome were attracted away from the then current scientific or scientistic view so strong on earth as centre of the revolving objects, but this does not at all alter the fact that in the outcome, it was the condemn, confine, judge approach against him and his views, even to the point of required abjuration, which won in the court of the Roman Catholic religion. It was this which expressed the decision of that vast religious body. Further,  it was applied in negative judgment at a high ecclesiastical level, thus tending to set back advance and progress, and far from encouraging it, confined and condemned Galileo even as vehemently suspected of it.  In all fairness, this ultimate fact must not be omitted in any endeavour to characterise and overview the action.  After all, the pope John Paul 11 in 1979, we learn from the same Encyclopedia, admitted that Galileo had been treated unjustly! .

Moreover, the contemporary papal outcome was still suppressive of Galileo's liberty to announce and account for his view, which was, then,  in due course condemned by a competent Roman Catholic court, as vehemently suspected of heresy (no measly charge), as a result of which he was still confined to house for the rest of his life under this heretical, condemnatory cloud. His view was condemned and he as even suspected sponsor and author of it likewise, and this by that self-same Roman Catholic body, and he was given a title of shame by it, a confinement of quarters and a religious repudiation to bear for the rest of his life. Such is the structure of the situation as exposed by the Encyclopedia, in harmony with Philip Schaff in his 8 volume History of the Christian Church. Indeed, the resultants are all too clear.

See on similar aspects of the matter, Bulletin 18,

Lord of Longsuffering ... Ch.   2

The Bountiful, the Acountable and the Surmountable Ch.  10.