CathInfo.com

You may not "accuse" the pope of spreading heresy, but it is implicit in your beliefs.
In 1820 the Pope said there was no obstacle to sustaining the view that you think was infallibly defined as heresy in 1616.

Even if you think 1820 was only about permitting books, the Pope said there was no obstacle to sustaining what you think are heretical views, even by Catholic authors.

In the 1820 statement, Copernicanism is never referred to as a fact or thesis but only as an "opinion" (e.g., "the opinion of Copernicus," and "the Copernican opinion," cited in the first decree).  Likewise in the second decree of 1822, the heliocentric cosmology then advocated by various scientists is never referred to as a fact or thesis, but only as an "opinion" (e.g., "the common opinion of modern astronomers").  An opinion is not a fact or thesis.  It is closer to a hypothesis or a theory.  As such, the Congregation of the Index appears to be saying that, as an official institution of the Catholic Church, it is not, and will not, advocate heliocentrism as a scientific fact, but if a Catholic author (such as Stanley? ) desires to formulate arguments to the contrary he may do so (even on a tradCat site such as CathInfo), and, of course, he does so at his own risk.  As such, the permission to print Settele's book is never said to be granted on the basis that the Index recognizes heliocentrism as a fact or these, but only as the "Copernican opinion, as it is presently defended..."  since both Copernicus' and "modern astronomers'" treatment of heliocentrism is nothing more than their respective opinions, then obviously Settele's advocacy of heliocentrism cannot be considered any more than an opinion, regardless of whether he, himself, (or even Stanley) believes it to be a thesis or fact.

After serious study of the subject, I certainly agree with the following taken from one much more learned than myself:

"… the permission initially given to Galileo's Dialogo was later rescinded by the 1633 magisterium because it found the imprimatur was issued under false pretenses … ."

I have chosen to highlight this particular sentence as a representative sample of the evidently uncontrollable impulse to falsify evidence—or fantasize it into existence; take your pick—that is ever so characteristic of those soi-disant orthodox Catholics who have little to no respect, not only for Galileo, but for the successors of Peter and the Apostles who have taken the utmost care to use the power of the Keys, divinely entrusted to them, with seemly gravity.

Put plainly, there was no such statement in the "1633 magisterium," whatever that curious composite term may actually refer to (when one is going to prattle legalistically, the least he can do is stick to proper legal terminology). What there was was this: a draft docuмent, prepared for Galileo's formal abjuration, in which this claim was included with no evidentiary support whatsoever. When Galileo flatly refused to sign the abjuration, regardless of the consequences to himself, if this charge was retained, the Examiners deleted the wording (as they doubtless knew full well they had to).* Incidentally, Galileo also required the removal of the charge that he was not "a good Catholic." As the Examiners, unlike cassini and many other CathInfo commenters, lacked the remarkably useful ability to read minds, they conceded that point to Galileo, too.

The bottom line is this: the formal docuмent of abjuration signed by Galileo on June 22, 1633, did not include either a charge or an admission of an illicitly obtained imprimatur. The fact that someone cited as an authority by klasG4e gets this elementary fact wrong calls into question his reliability on everything else he writes about the affair.
____________________
*Galileo's grounds were that, as he had acted in all candor by following to the letter the requirements for obtaining the imprimatur, to admit that he had employed false pretences would constitute the mortal sin of perjury. In addition, a false admission would make everyone else in the approval and printing process liable to severe criminal penalties—hence, another grave sin against justice.