I would agree, Jack.

I would say, Pete, that we are getting into very deep waters here, where disentangling what is true, what is a lie and how those interact with what people believe is no simple matter. Even what we mean by 'true' and 'a lie', 'true' and 'false', and whether both of those 'true's are the same thing needs careful thought and precisely chosen language. And I have my sister visiting at the moment, so I haven't time just now. Maybe I can flesh this out a bit this evening.

But to summarise in a sentence or two: What people are told about Galileo and the Church is factually accurate. The 'Thomas Aquinas' definition of a lie was that it was a false statement and told with the intention to deceive. I disagree; as far as I am concerned the key characteristic of a lie is that it told with the intention to deceive: whether it is true or false is secondary to that intention, in my view. But in this case what is told is both factually correct and it is not told (by most people) with the intention to deceive, so neither I nor Aquinas would consider it a lie.