Let me address that, since it should have been addressed to a Catholic.
Much of the criticism of the Latin Church circa 1500 is valid. Much is a misunderstanging, or an exagerration, or outright calumny. However, I would postulate that at least the 95 theses were indeed valid criticism, and some of the later maneuvers of the Chruch with respect to Luther were underhanded or at least seemed to him underhanded, as there was a period when he was debating in good faith with St. Cajetan.
If the Reformers split over the conduct of Rome at that time, their position would have been analogous to the position of the Orthodox: a schism over authority, minor theological disagreements as the two Churches developed independently from the point of the schism onward, unity of the fundamental faith. However, they did not do that. They instead invented a set of theologies sharply dissonant with the doctrines of the historical Church of Christ. Rather than moving, like the Orthodox, largely in a parallel direction and retaining the deposit of faith elucidated by the Church of the Seven Concils, you moved centrifugally and continue to do so. Give you another couple centuries and you will be farther from Christ than Mohammed. That is a problem much larger than the Roman baroque opulence and the sale of indulgences.
I appreciate your admission. I don't think anyone would want to support the shenanigans of Roman Catholic hierarchy during that time. There were Popes with mistresses and children. High churchmen with multiple offices who never even visited the congregations they were supposedly shepherding, brothels in Rome for clergy, and of course the selling of indulgences to pay for a big cathedral. Luther's 95 theses were valid indeed.
And Luther had no desire to break from Rome. He thought after posting the theses that the Pope, whom he held out the benefit of the doubt concerning if for a short time, would call for reform once he heard of the abuses. Instead, Luther's own life was put in danger unless he recanted his theses. The church pushed Luther into that corner which he didn't wish to go into initially.
Luther had an epiphany though in his translation of the New Testament into German. He realized that what was being taught by the church was not Scriptural. He could not help but go in an opposite direction - towards Sola Scriptura. For when the church says that you can buy your way or a relative's way out of punishment in purgatory, it is preaching a different gospel altogether than that once delivered to the saints. When the churchmen are allowed to use their posts not to shepherd flocks but to fleece the flocks, one must go in another direction. Rome was in big trouble in Luther's day and only through the reforms of Ignatius did some of the most obvious abuses improve (though we as Protestants would still argue there is a different gospel found within Rome and we would do so from Scripture).
Protestantism is fragmented. I think God designed it that way because of what a centralized church became. On the essential of what actually saves, you will find much harmony between Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, and most Protestant groups. We have a lot of difference on what I would consider non-essentials. But there is some difference within Catholicism on the non-essentials too (some Catholics are charismatic, some want a Latin only mass, some are more adherent to the Pope's social pronouncements than others etc.,)
Oh well, Annalex. I know we won't agree on this. I did want to say that I appreciated your acknowledgement of Luther's initial objections being valid and the fact that Rome's conduct was less than desirable. We can agree on that if nothing else.