Why are Catholics so disrespectful towards Francis -- and how to react?

[Stat_Crux]

But even such a concern for souls is inappropriate. It betrays a lack of trust in God’s ability to achieve His will however He wishes. If one is concerned about souls, the appropriate response is to pray, rather than to hold fast to their “right” to disagree with Pope Francis.

I have to respectfully disagree on that first part. Without diminishing the importance of prayer, suggesting that we shouldn’t show concern for the souls of those we love, nor express that concern through a desire to help them, sounds like indifference to their situations. Christ sent the disciples out into the world to preach the truth and “make disciples of all nations”. The letters of St Paul make copious reference to his missionary travels and his unceasing preaching for the salvation of souls in the face of constant and often very violent resistance. God, being all powerful, does not “need” our help. But clearly he had some intentional reason in mind when sending his followers out into the world to spread the Gospel, knowing at the start as he surely did that many would meet a horrible death along the way.

We pray as everything depends upon God, but we should act as though everything depends upon us. We are called to “do” something, lest we be judged like the bad servant in the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30).

 

[mikekle]

Imo, a good indicator to whether a Pope, Bishop, Cardinal, etc is doing a good job, doing what is right according to God, would be how the secular/ liberal world feel about them, if they hate and despise him, well that probably means he is doing what he is supposed to do, and saying the right things.

 

[tiny_augustine]

Contarini,

Jesus said, “whatever you did to the LEAST of my [COVENANTAL] BROTHERS [THAT IS, OLD COVENANT JEWS, OUT THERE RIGHT NOW, WHO HAVE NEVER HEARD OF HIM, OR DO NOT KNOW WHAT HE TAUGHT OR DID, AS WELL AS, ALL CHRISTIANS, WHO BELONG TO THE NEW COVENANT] you did to ME.” He also said, “Saul why are you persecuting ME?” When he said, “judge not, lest you be judged,” he meant “do not judge according to the corruption of this world, that is, the covetousness of honour, social standing, riches, possessions, politics, or your own sinful desires.” But he clearly commands us to judge sin, which is either apostasy, idolatry, and false oaths, as well as ripping apart the Body of Christ, the family covenant of the Members of the Church, through destructive words and actions.

Have I sinned, brother, in any way?

Please explain what hyper-conservatism is? I know that the media, lately, likes to use the term “alt-right,” while, simultaneously, calumniating this term: people who have “alt-right” ideas are, somehow, racist (they aren’t actually). Considering that there was only “conservative” and “liberal” in the popular imagination before, would you be saying that “hyper-conservatives” are “alt-right?” I, obviously, wouldn’t be a sincere Catholic if I were racist, since racism is a sin of division. If you think that “hyper-conservatives” are not, in the end, racist, why is it wrong to have such a leaning? How do they practice sin? If they don’t, then upon what does your judgment rest? Should there, then, be any judgment? If “hyper-conservatives” are a part of the Body of Christ, aren’t they allowed to contribute to discussions? While I like certain ideas of the “alt-right,” I wouldn’t actually consider myself to be so.

I don’t think Popes are supposed to be “aloof and austere and aristocratic.” Far from it. But, if the media twisted my words, I would be outraged at this calumny, and issue as many clarifications for Catholics as needed…especially if they depended on my authority. And I would never allow my words to be paraphrased according to how a certain famous Italian journalist “feels.” If I knew that this was that journalist’s approach, I wouldn’t have allowed myself to be interviewed by him in the first place. Clarity is important. This does, after all, have moral consequences.

 

[tiny_augustine]

Climate change, by itself, may not be as substantial as you think. Many scientists disagree with it. It’s actually the other way around: the scientist who oppose climate change are publically discredited, and certainly aren’t getting paid the big bucks goverments pay climate change supporting scientists. And, even if climate change was true, there’s nothing, of any real substance, that average people can do until those with real power, who control real things that actually affect the environment, do something about it…but they don’t. Politicians talk and talk, and waste money, and focus the attack more specifically on average people through taxes, and use it as another excuse to get the government involved in every aspect of the average person’s life who, in many more ways, now has to depend on that government even more. Politicians do not, substantially, focus the attack on industries and companies, some of whom (such as the monopolies and empires who crush every other legitimate competitor in their path and, until failing to do so with Trump, simultaneously approach both political parties to protect their own interests) are in bed with governments. The “doctrine” of climate change is actually and substantially atheistic with no regard to our Faith or the Body of Christ’s morality of worshipping God and maintaining communion with him through each other. Where in the Tradition do here of us destroying ourselves by destroying our planet? Isn’t God in charge of his creation? What happened to “world without end?” Would God just allow us to go extinct and screw up his final consummation of his plan? The Tradition, actually, says no such thing, but, at least, implies the opposite. The Catholic Tradition, at best, accommodates climate change by attempting to Christianize it according to Faith and morals. But I will repeat the main point of what I wrote before in the form of a question: does the world care about climate change in relation to Christian Faith and the morality of maintaining Covenant unity? I don’t think so.

Again, since you say that all conservatives now, and not just “hyper-conservatives,” are sinning by deception and by throwing away truth (if climate change, a debated topic, is even true) how do we do this? How and when have we done this? Can you give actual examples of our actions, besides our expressing an opinion? Do we hold secret meetings on how to deceive others? Did we plan and achieve a coup in the Church (no one can ever do this)? Do we pump out our propaganda in every mainstream media channel (except for Fox) and in every university?

The Catholic Church (I would argue near-officially, but most Catholics would argue officially) condemns Marxism, Socialism, and Communism, because these do not jive well with the sources of our Tradition. But the Church doesn’t condemn moderate capitalism. What’s wrong with capitalism, according to Tradition? I see some problems with it, but what right do I have to keep pro-capitalist Catholics from sharing their opinions and ideas. How do they sin?

 

[tiny_augustine]

Islamic attacks have not been overblown – they’ve been underblown by the mainstream media. I wouldn’t consider an act of terrorism to be “work-place violence.” I wouldn’t consider the beheading of a Catholic priest, and the procession of his head around the altar, to be merely a “stabbing.” Charity calls for us to open up our borders? That’s how we help people who flee from a country (they are also “fleeing” from other Islamic parts of the world that do not have such inter-muslim conflict) that embraces a religious ideology that caused its destruction – we give them welfare (which is how, according to the example of Muhammad, as mentioned within the hadiths, their religion teaches them to live…off the backs of others). That may work within socialism but it doesn’t have any part within the Catholic Tradition. Why doesn’t the 100-plus other countries conquered by Islam take them in? Actually, German police officers spend more time arresting people for “insensitive” online posts than they do arresting sharia-enforcers. Please, read the only sources of their religion, which are the quran and hadiths. There’s a difference here between muslims and Christians. When muslims do bad things, these bad things, agree with and are commanded by their books. When Christians do bad things, these bad things do NOT agree with the Sacraments, Scriptures, Liturgies, Creeds, Councils, Fathers, etc. Christians who do these are called “sinners,” and they can’t pin it on anything within a legitimate interpretation of these. Muslims who do these things, according to their own books, are called “faithful,” and pin it down, straightforwardly, on the quran “which is a clear guide.” And, you forget that, for the sake of clarity, I mentioned that there are innocent muslims out there. But if one person has an understanding of Islam according to its own sources, and another has an understanding NOT according to its own sources, which one is being irrational? Which one exaggerates? If we are actually talking about Islam here, I have honestly found “no best elements” within it besides help only muslim poor, and be good to only muslims, and other basic moral things. Read the quran, the hadiths, the life of Muhammad, the earliest and most admired muslim commentators, muslim history, and read about the history of the crusades from Christian apologists, and then tell me if your well-educated friends are actually being truthful.

The golden rule does not, upon a proper exegesis, mean what you think it means. Anyways, I believe in the popular interpretation of the golden rule since it matches the “whatever you have done to the least of my brothers, you’ve done to me” quote. Also, while I believe that charity, or agape (which is so much more than “love”), really, according to context, can only be given to one’s fellow Christians, I do believe in being a “light to the nations,” Christ to the world. Most people in my life are non-believers…but I love them still. I don’t believe that, since they are not in Christ, I can do whatever I want to them. If I did violence to them, I wouldn’t hurt Christ…but I’d still ruin my vocation, and, depending how bad it was, still lose out on eternal life. My point is, let’s not take Christ out of context. Muslims are not the Body of Christ. Sorry. I want them to be though. How will they ever become Members if I tell them how good their religion is, and deceptively hide the truth from them, when their religion is false and evil. If I did this, wouldn’t I be able to accommodate your own words, from earlier, against you: “you and other folks do not. Actually you do care about it–you badly want people not to think about it, and you want to define the Faith so as to exclude [this].” I respect other religions…but who says that I have to respect that one?

 

[po18guy]

We, as laity (most of us, anyway), risk lapsing into murmuring over this and that subject regarding Pope Francis. Do we not have Bishops to maintain the integrity of the Church? Do we trust ourselves more than the Bishops? Are we smarter than Pope Francis? I see a dangerous precedent being set here with the relentless drumbeat against our Holy father. Frankly, it is a distant echo from 16th century Germany.

When we criticize, publicize, gossip, murmur and otherwise offer unneeded opinions, we tear at the garment of the Church. What ever happened to trust in the Holy Spirit, trust in the hierarchy, and simple, humble obedience?

The Church is not a democracy - what it is, is indefectible. To believe otherwise is to doubt Christ.

 

[tiny_augustine]

Po18guy, I wouldn’t think that we risk lapsing into murmuring. When the Israelites murmured in the Book of Numbers, this meant that they wanted to hang Moses, apostasize from God, and return to Egypt. I don’t think anybody wants any of the above. Bishops are needed to maintain the integrity of the Church, but so are the laity! Actually, it is the Holy Spirit who truly maintains the integrity. We’re the Body of Christ all together. We need to do our part too. Offering constructive criticism is not an attack against Authority. The Pope and the Bishops are the custodians of the Tradition. They, through this Tradition, keep order, resolve conflicts, make interpretations. But Christ rules in the Holy Spirit. We should trust ourselves and the Bishops because the Holy Spirit, through the giving of the Tradition, is our guide. Remember that Francis publicized his own words since they were made in public. Nothing in the list of constructive criticism that we have discussed concerns his any infallible pronouncements. When he speaks non-infallibly, we are told to still submit with the intellect and reverence, but he’s talking about things that don’t really matter, and saying things that are very debateable, while other Popes have said the opposite. Benedict, for example, was much more truthful in regards to Islam. How could I submit to them both? Actually, it makes much more sense to say that we are to submit with the intellect and reverence only to a Pope’s written letters, which are not infallible. But to Francis’ many media statements, I don’t think so.

 

[tiny_augustine]

CORRECTION: a Pope’s written documents are infallible if they contain a clause specifically stating that they are, and are spoken ex-cathedra to the whole Church in concern to Faith and morals only.

 

[tiny_augustine]

By the way, if any of you guys don’t have time to read Islamic books, and want a really good Christian, but not Catholic, apologist against Islam, check out David Wood at:

youtube.com/user/Acts17Apologetics

He’s brilliant and in-depth with his arguments as to why Islam is anything but what the media, politicians, and even muslims tell us.

 

[St_Francis]

But even such a concern for souls is inappropriate. It betrays a lack of trust in God’s ability to achieve His will however He wishes.

Do you think it is God’s will that people sin? No way!!! God’s will is done by people freely following His will, not by His forcing His will on us.

If one is concerned about souls, the appropriate response is to pray, rather than to hold fast to their “right” to disagree with Pope Francis.

If one is in a position to offer fraternal correction, one is at times obliged to do so. To consider the pope to be above making mistakes or even commiting sins is an error.

St Benedict in his Rule explains how the monks should deal with their superiors when their is a problem. Prayer is of course an important component, but sometimes God’s wills action.

 

[1neophyte]

If one is in a position to offer fraternal correction, one is at times obliged to do so.

True, but what is at issue here is the problem of people who offer “fraternal correction” to Pope Francis when they are not, in fact, in a position to do so.

 

[St_Francis]

True, but what is at issue here is the problem of people who offer “fraternal correction” to Pope Francis when they are not, in fact, in a position to do so.

People discuss these things for a reason. For example, I want to engage in a dialogue which helps people (including me) come to a better understanding of the truth.

I think I understand Pope Francis’s reasoning in AL, so I do not think he is doing something heretical. I think it is imprudent. Previous popes have denied the use of the internal forum, so it’s not like this is a new issue.

Pope Francis is basing his reason on the fact that some people feel left out because they cannot receive the Eucharist. Well, St Paul (already canonized) says if we eat or drink unworthily, we condemn ourselves to Hell. This is a serious issue, not a small matter.

 

[Contarini]

By the way, if any of you guys don’t have time to read Islamic books, and want a really good Christian, but not Catholic, apologist against Islam, check out David Wood at:

youtube.com/user/Acts17Apologetics

He’s brilliant and in-depth with his arguments as to why Islam is anything but what the media, politicians, and even muslims tell us.

Why not read scholarship as well?

Why, if you care about truth, are you deliberately catering to one of the worst aspects of our culture–its unwillingness to wade through serious discussions of the evidence?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

True, but what is at issue here is the problem of people who offer “fraternal correction” to Pope Francis when they are not, in fact, in a position to do so.

Then who is?

I’m all in favor of bishops (and others) speaking up when they think the Pope is wrong–even though I don’t think he is wrong in this case.

Edwin

 

[tiny_augustine]

Contarini,

I do go to current muslim scholarship as well. While I’ve never read the commentaries of current muslim scholars, I have seen them in academic debates with Christians, and their approach is always proven to be deceptive or illogical to the ORIGINAL muslims sources and ancient commentaries. Islam is a book religion…it depends upon the quran and the hadiths and the commentaries of the first and earliest muslims and the Life of Muhammad. These are the most authorititative. Whatever new muslim scholars say does not hold water compared to these…they either are based off of these or try to get away from these. Islam, also, is less tolerant to open discussion than Christianity. While for me, Scott Hahn is like a current day Church Father when it comes to Christianity, a muslim would never see Shabir Ally in this way.

Besides, David Wood does a great job using the muslim sources. Everything he says confirms what I’ve studied through my readings.

 

[mattp0625]

I will always respect the office of the Pope as the successor of Peter. I do not not enjoy unfair criticism of the Church’s magisterium. Additionally, one can see the non-Catholics waiting to pounce on the situation.

I believe the pope is a good Catholic and a good Christian.

Disclaimer - Most of what I have read about this situation is through Catholic media. I have not read the documents myself.

I believe the issue reflects a difference in style. The pope sometimes appears to deal in the abstract while not addressing the practicalities of his ideas.

For example, Catholic media has reported that the pope stated, “It is the communists who are most like Christians”. I do not know the full context of this statement. We know that communism is a utopian concept.

Of course, sharing with the poor and helping our brethren reflects the teachings of Christ. This was also a focus of Saint Francis.

We know Pope Francis’s home country of Argentina includes socialist and communist elements.

However, through history, we know the realities of communism and socialism do not reflect the utopian ideals. We know that these are often atheistic movements that often lead to disaster. We can see the results in Russia, China, Cambodia, Venezuela, Germany, etc.

Similarly, when discussing the potential mitigating impacts of divorce and remarriage, I can understand the desire to reach out to those who are living under difficult circumstances. However, this approach does seem to introduce too much ambiguity and the practicalities remain unaddressed. Additionally, the idea seems unfair to those who have made a good faith effort to do the right thing.

I have read that seminaries are returning to a “traditional” approach. I read the pope has referred to this as “rigid”. However, introducing the type of ambiguity discussed above resembles much of non-Catholic Christianity. The Catholic Church has survived, in part, due to its objectivity and ability to withstand cultural trends such as abortion.

Pope John Paul the Great wrote about the strength of an absolute moral code versus relativism. While Pope Francis has reinforced the absolute moral evil of abortion and marriage to the same sex, he has chosen a different path on remarriage in an attempt to extend mercy.

I will always support the pope for reasons previously mentioned. However, history has shown us that the successor to Peter can be corrected without leading to a schism or calling into question his Christ-given authority to lead the Church on earth. This is why the infallibility of “ex cathedra” statements are not apart from the college of cardinals and the whole Church.

 

[Contarini]

Contarini,

I do go to current muslim scholarship as well. While I’ve never read the commentaries of current muslim scholars, I have seen them in academic debates with Christians, and their approach is always proven to be deceptive or illogical to the ORIGINAL muslims sources and ancient commentaries. Islam is a book religion…it depends upon the quran and the hadiths and the commentaries of the first and earliest muslims and the Life of Muhammad. These are the most authorititative. Whatever new muslim scholars say does not hold water compared to these…they either are based off of these or try to get away from these. Islam, also, is less tolerant to open discussion than Christianity. While for me, Scott Hahn is like a current day Church Father when it comes to Christianity, a muslim would never see Shabir Ally in this way.

Besides, David Wood does a great job using the muslim sources. Everything he says confirms what I’ve studied through my readings.

Can you give me examples of some of these scholars who have been shown to be “deceptive”?

And your premises are untenable.
It is absurd to suggest that any religion is bound to accept the interpretation of its original texts made by polemical outsiders who read their writings with an axe to grind.
Christians would never stand for this. They shouldn’t inflict it on others.

Edwin

 

[tiny_augustine]

Shabir Ali, Zakir Naik, Reza Aslan, Nadir Ahmed, Daniel Peterson (an Islamic scholar, yet non-muslim), etc. I must say, however, that Shabir Ali is probably the most honest.

Want more? If you want actual examples of what they say, watch their debates with Christians, after you, first, read muslim “holy” books for yourself. And watch how these muslim scholars backpeddle and twist things and are called out for doing so by their opponents.

Ok. So let me get this straight, the quran is a straightforward message from allah, which asserts that it is crystal “clear.” Within it, allegorical interpretation, and, indeed, any other non-literal sense interpretation, of it is not permitted by allah…he alone is said to know allegorical things. The hadiths scrupulously elaborate on its passages, through a chain of authoritative reception, giving the actual interpretations and living example of Muhammad in accordance to these. The strongest hadiths, which are still followed and must be believed, are the earliest ones. In this religious system, based upon books, it is not just belief in allah that is needed…one must also be faithful to his commands, as well as accept everything that Muhammad teaches as well as his example…he must be imitated (although, in truth, allah and his prophet have very much in common).

With that background, would it shock you to know that the interpretation of those who YOU judge to be “polemical outsiders” (you’re judging Christians again!), actually agree with the earliest muslim commentators, as well as the straightforward quran? Did the original muslim commentators also have “an axe to grind?” Maybe they did, actually. Did you know that the first generation of muslims is, according to the quran and hadiths, considered to be Islam’s purest followers? But do you know what they did to one another? War against and butcher each other in regards to not only who would succeed Muhammad, but also in regards to which “leader” represented Islam in its purity. I learned this from, you guessed it, from muslim history itself.

Have you read any of the quran, hadiths, original and authoritative commentaries on it?

Set the record straight for all of us. Have you?

Is it your position that you, as a Christian, do not know how to read or understand anything Islamic, and so you must be told of it from only muslims? Do you take the same approach to the Bible, and not try to understand it because you can’t possibly understand it without someone closer to it (maybe a bishop) explaining it to you?

Please, prove to us how non-muslim outsiders are polemical and have an axe to grind. They must, then, be guilty of the sin of calumny. Please expose these sinners. Who are they? Can you give examples? Do you know some early Eastern Church Fathers wrote various tracts on how to deal with the fact that muslims are not easy to get along with. Expose these sinners! Show us how they are lying if you’re going to make a judgment.

Actually, I have no problem with Jewish commentators on the Old Testament and even the New. I evaluate their interpretation according to the sources of the Tradition though (Sacraments, Scripture, Liturgies, Creeds, Councils, Fathers, etc). I’ve learned awesome things about Jesus cleansing the Temple, and its meaning in regards to the Eucharist, from Rabbi Jacon Neusner. Of course, I’d have a problem with an outsider twisting the religion…but a familiarity with Christian sources and logic clearly tell me if they do this. With Islam, a familiarity with their most authoritative texts and interpretations and logic itself is somehow not enough to show that Islam is violent and dark. The default position that it is “peaceful,” however, MUST BE SUBMITTED TO. The mental gymnastics are amazing!

Again, while I don’t like people twisting my religion, I won’t censor free speech and discussion though. There should be debate and inquiry, and proper, logical conclusions should be reached. With Christianity, I find that we are slandered but not allowed to defend ourselves within the public forum through systematic propaganda and rejection. But politicians and so-called intellectuals bend backwards to defend Islam even from legitimate questions!

And, I don’t know whether or not it is, but if your real hang-up is “racism,” you should know that muslims are not a race because Islam is a religious ideology. There are asian muslims and white muslims and many other kinds. I’m not racist against Arab people…one of my best friends is an Arab Christian.

So far you’ve given us only reactionary feelings. You bring no knowledge of Islamic sources to the table. You bring forth no evidence. You start off your original conversation with me by condemning “hyper-conservatives” and then proceed to attack anybody right-wing. You judge Christians not according to the truth of morality that is preserving unity within the Body of Christ, but according to your fashion and politics, which, through your words and responses to me, clearly guide you in how you live your Christian faith more than any of the sources of our Tradition.

Not interested in talking to you anymore.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Then who is?

I’m all in favor of bishops (and others) speaking up when they think the Pope is wrong–even though I don’t think he is wrong in this case.

Edwin

In some instances (per Vatican I and Canon 1404) no one has the right to judge or question the Pope’s judgments.

From Vatican I’s Constitution on the Church:

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]

 

[Contarini]

Shabir Ali, Zakir Naik, Reza Aslan, Nadir Ahmed, Daniel Peterson (an Islamic scholar, yet non-muslim), etc. I must say, however, that Shabir Ali is probably the most honest.

Well, based on a quick Google search Naik and Ahmed look like propagandists more than scholars. I am not a big fan of Aslan either (don’t take that out of context, fellow Narnia fans). I’m inclined to think that a genuine scholar of Islam like Peterson is more likely to treat texts fairly than a Christian apologist–but then Peterson is also a Mormon apologist. I mistrust apologists of all kinds, frankly.

Want more? If you want actual examples of what they say, watch their debates with Christians, after you, first, read muslim “holy” books for yourself. And watch how these muslim scholars backpeddle and twist things and are called out for doing so by their opponents.

I dislike watching videos for information. Too time-consuming, too manipulative, and I live in the country and have limited bandwidth.

Don’t assume ignorance in people you disagree with, by the way. You haven’t earned the right to talk down to me.

Ok. So let me get this straight, the quran is a straightforward message from allah

Says who?

which asserts that it is crystal “clear.”

Where does it assert that? Are you thinking of 54: 17? Some translations render this “easy to remember.” But even if it does claim that it’s easy to understand, why would you or I as as non-Muslims necessarily believe this? Furthermore, maybe it was easy to understand in the 7th century but not now. Maybe it’s easy to understand for Muslims (given certain canons of interpretation) but not for us. There are all kinds of possibilities (though I think the last one is very unlikely–in general, I would say that no ancient text is ever easy to understand).

Within it, allegorical interpretation, and, indeed, any other non-literal sense interpretation, of it is not permitted by allah…he alone is said to know allegorical things.

Bunk. Allegorical interpretation of the Qur’an is very common in the Islamic tradition, as in the Christian tradition.

It looks as if you may have been listening to Wahhabi commentators and taking them as typical of Islam as a whole, which they aren’t, any more than fundamentalist Protestants represent Christianity as a whole.

The hadiths scrupulously elaborate on its passages, through a chain of authoritative reception, giving the actual interpretations and living example of Muhammad in accordance to these. The strongest hadiths, which are still followed and must be believed, are the earliest ones.

It’s not that simple. There are different opinions on which ones are strong and which ones are weak, and there are no easily discernible “oldest ones” that I know of.

The hadiths make Islam more complex, not simpler.

In this religious system, based upon books, it is not just belief in allah that is needed…one must also be faithful to his commands, as well as accept everything that Muhammad teaches as well as his example…he must be imitated (although, in truth, allah and his prophet have very much in common).

Sure. But, again, this imitation is understood through a pious lens. Muslims are not bound to imitate “Muhammad as interpreted by Christian polemicists.”

With that background, would it shock you to know that the interpretation of those who YOU judge to be “polemical outsiders” (you’re judging Christians again!),

Christians are not Muslims, and are thus outsiders to the tradition.
Christians who are arguing against Islam are polemical. That’s what polemical means.

actually agree with the earliest muslim commentators,

That may well be the case some of the time. I would indeed be surprised if it were consistently the case. You would need to provide some actual evidence for this claim. But I’m not sure why I would care. I’m interested in Islam as a historical phenomenon throughout the centuries, and in contemporary Islam in its own right as a religion believed in by the people who live on earth with me right now. I don’t believe that the Qur’an is divinely inspired and I don’t believe that the earliest commentators are authoritative in telling me what God wants me to believe. Hence, if later Muslims come up with better interpretations (from a Christian and natural-law perspective) than earlier ones, I thank God who abandons no one in the darkness but seeks to lead all into the light by any means possible.

as well as the straightforward quran?

There is no such thing as the “straightforward qur’an.” Muslims who think there is are deluded, just as Christians who think the Bible is straightforward are deluded.

Did the original muslim commentators also have “an axe to grind?” Maybe they did, actually. Did you know that the first generation of muslims is, according to the quran and hadiths, considered to be Islam’s purest followers?

I believe that the Qur’an (9.100) praises those of Muhammad’s own time, and Sahih Bukhari 76.437 says that the generation following him was next in honor, yes. But your “earliest commentators” were quite a bit later than that.