I think you're making a category error here. No pope is expected to be perfect or even prudent or even a "good pope." There can be popes who make wrong-headed decisions on a prudential basis. In fact all of them do so to one extent or another. For example, it would be wrong for you to condemn Pope Pius XI just because of his "condemnation of the French monarchist group Action Française," even if that was a bad, stupid, or counter-productive decision. The real question is, "Are they sincerely striving for the defense and propagation of the Catholic faith, or are they promoting a revolutionary new system of beliefs and practices?" It's the classic distinction between being faithful and being successful. It is essential that the Pope be faithful, even if his pontificate isn't successful.