I am going to limit the scope of my answer to the popes of the late medieval and early modern popes, such Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia). Criticism of the popes was quite common. To list all instances of such would leave us here all day. One of the most famous examples is found in Dante’s Inferno. During his journey, Dante meets Pope Nicholas III in the eight circle of hell. As this is where people are sent for simony (the crime of acquiring church offices through bribes) Dante naturally assumes that it is Boniface VIII. Nicholas III quickly identifies himself and corrects Dante, but admits the mistake is not a great one: Boniface VIII is on his way, with Clement V soon to follow. It is also hinted that Celestine V met a similar end. The pope following Alexander VI, (disregarding Pius III’s two day pontificate) Julius II refused to live in the same apartments that Alexander had occupied.

Posthumous trials, condemnations, and reversal of policies were common place for popes as well. So a better question might be, why were such obviously wicked popes allowed to remain in power? Certainly no list can be exhaustive, but we ought to consider a few major factors. First, Catholic teaching is clear that the virtue of the minister of the sacraments has no effect on their efficacy. Such teaching traces back to the Donatist controversy of the fourth and fifth centuries. It is God who works in the sacraments, not the priest or bishop. Bishops therefore ought to be disciplines for their wayward actions, but doing so was not a pressing concern insofar as maintaining proper sacraments in the Church.

Second, we should note that many of these popes engaged in things that offset the downsides in the eyes of many. Alexander VI’s sex life was a PR problem for sure. But a good pope must be more than a role model, he must be an effective administrator and politician. By those metrics, Alexander VI was quite successful. He made many procedural reforms to the curia, and the manner in which the church acquired and sold real estate. He founded universities in Scotland and Spain, and he was a generous patron of the arts. So for many the benefits of Alexander VI’s papacy outweighed the costs.

Finally, even if they wished to remove a pope for continuous moral failing, how would that be done? Removing a pope for any reason was incredibly problematic. The pope could not just be fired: he had a kingdom, army, and allies to call upon. Attempts to remove sitting popes were often disastrous. Upon regretting their decision to elect Urban VI in April of 1378, the curia elected Clement VII. Unfortunately, Urban VI did not recognize such a decision as valid. This ignited the “Great Western Schism” which resulted in several wars and lasted until 1417. At one point there were even three claimants to the papacy.

So for popes after 1417 even those who, in theory, wanted their removal would pause and think twice? Was the existence of Cesare Borgia really worth plunging Europe into another war over? In most cases not. In conclusion the idea of breaking with or removing a pope involved major questions over not just theology and morals, but also politics and economics.