You do indeed, to justify an elitist "one true church that is such a deformation that it is basically invisible in Scripture.
That's really great. Do you understand why it's so hard for me to ever think that Protestants are capable of genuine and regular charity? It's because of people like you.
You speak of "charity," when it is you who attack Protestantism? With specious articles like(500 Years of Chaos: Protestantism’s Anniversary; Why I Hate "Faith Alone"? And then defend an immoral pope, and attack those who provide what you left out.
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; (1 Corinthians 13:6)
Oh, I forgot about this, translated what this most likely means is, "what is most likely in the interest of RC damage control." Nepotism is translated into "loyalty was a trait of the utmost importance to the isolated Borgia clan." Testimony against him is dealt with by declaring: "Rodrigo has been the victim of much undeserved calumny. At least three of his contemporary accusers never even met him!" As if that dismisses their sources and all others. But that he was "rumored to be quite handsome" is worth noting. And despite his well attested immorality, sexual and otherwise, your conclusion at the start of your series seems to determine what "is most likely:" "Of an essentially good character, he was a devout follower of Christ and the Madonna. He deserves better treatment." - http://catholicanalysis.org/2014/10/13/the-personality-of-pope-alexander-vi/
Next, fornication is rendered,
"He was “faithful through his life to [this] one woman”. After the births of their children and before he ascended to the Papacy, she was put away in luxurious accommodations and received provision for the rest of her life. She “agreed with the Cardinal about the need for her to live a life of retirement rather than presume on a position which would then have given far less scandal than at any other period of history”. She paints a picture of Rodrigo as anything but a “debauched man”- http://catholicanalysis.org/2014/10/14/the-borgia-family/
Yet even the papist protector you cite says,
It suggests that Rodrigo Borgia was, in principle, at least, faithful through his life to one woman." And that "he was discreet and dignified enough to send his mistress to Spain for the birth of the earlier children..." and "it suggests that the mother agreed with the Cardinal about the need for her to live a life of retirement..." (Bedoyere) [eph. mine.]
All of which is what these acts "suggests " to the papist, but what must be not allowed is that while caring somewhat for one women, he had more during his lifetime, and that as he had a number of children by Vanozza out of wedlock, he sent her away to avoid scandal, which she had little choice but to do, while most likely spending church funds on his mistress!
And rather than being objective the rest is so much an exercise in Protect the Pope apologetics, which cannot bear to mention almost anything negative about Borgia, using the existence of false allegation to dismiss the weight of the negative conclusions of other scholarship but much replying on other papal defenders, All of which is a result of disobedience to the admonition, "not to think of men above that which is written..." (1 Corinthians 4:6)
Some of what you explain away may be true, but i hardly see you as having much credibility.