All history is interpretation. Each history book even by a scholar is interpretation.
All I'm trying to say is that there is nuance here that doesn't seem to be taken into account by those who just wish the whole thing never happened, and anything less than everyone praising the man and immediately changing their opinions and the RCC being welcoming (and his book was dedicated to a recieved by a Bishop, lest we forget) won't be satisfactory.
It just seems to be all or nothing with some people.
"Interpretation" seems like an honest misunderstanding. But, often, history is intentionally altered to save face. Japan, for example, taught its people that they were the innocent victims of aggression. They we so far as to ask China for an apology, when China coated them in a thick froth of reality.