It is clear that between 1540 and 1559 the Catholic Church became increasingly intolerant of debasement and dissent. This is mainly due to the leaders who ascended the papal throne in this period. Between 1540 and 1559 there were several popes with very different opinions on how to deal with the issues of Protestantism, degradation and dissent. The pope of 1540 was Pope Paul III, and he was the most contemporary pope of the time, with strong views towards Catholic reform. Having taken over from Pope Clement III in 1534, he had a fair amount of experience in the office of pope. However, even with this six-year experience, Pope Paul III was very reluctant to act on the problem of Protestantism, so the level of tolerance towards debasement and dissent was quite high. I think he didn't act partly because he hoped the situation would resolve itself, and partly because he naively felt that Catholicism would remain the dominant power. Due to pressure from Pope Paul III to act, he called a Concilium, which overall was ineffective in dealing with the situation of decay and dissent, but at least attempted to try to regain control of the situation. Although Pope Paul III was intolerant of degradation and dissent, the actions he took to try to prevent it were ineffective and thus the issue of degradation and dissent remained fairly unscathed. In 1549 Pope Paul III died, which allowed Julius III to assume the role of Pope. He was greatly influenced by Charles V, who was a key power in Europe. Due to the influence of Charles V, Julius decided to recall the Council of Trent in 1549, which had previously been dissolved in 1548 due to the shortcomings of Pope Paul III. However, similarly to what occurred during the reign of Pope Paul III, ... half of the document ... position to be reformed as Pope Paul III, but once again the changes he wished to implement during his papal reign were not fully appreciated . Pope Paul III and Pope Julius III had a less energetic character than Caraffa, so when he was assigned the role of Pope, he did not hesitate to intervene on the issue of debasement and dissent towards which he had been intolerant for many years, but I did not have the capacity to act against. However, I also felt that the social spread of Protestantism ensured a growing intolerance of debasement and dissent, as did Caraffa's uncompromising attitude. If Protestantism had not spread to Italy, I don't think there would have been as drastic a need to act against debasement and dissent, although, because Caraffa had such an intransigent nature, he probably would still have felt that a vital change in the situation.