1. I have never seen a catechism material that talks of infailability.
2. Rome chose to bring itself into heresy. This is no different for instance that they monosyphites.
3. Protestants come from they already schismatic Roman church, they are illrelevant to the discussion.
4. I don't see how this is news to you since this is the exact same position Rome has held for a thousand years. You may recall, and if not I can link you to quotes, that teh Cardinal of Paris said the Crimean war was god-pleasing for killing the [Orthodox] heretics.
5. I again ask you why if the pope has inherited the primacy of Peter why he does not exercise the same sort of absolute removal from the church Peter undoubtably would with regard to homosexual clergy abusing children. Do you honestly feel Peter would wait years until everyone weighed in, moving clergy from place to place? I sincerely doubt it, I suspect he would come down quite strongly against this sinful heresy in the priesthood. Please explain to me why the current 'heir of Peter' finds this behavior acceptable enough that he acts so slowly against it.
2. We are in Schism with each other. Your terms are that of polemics, not of desiring reuninification. We are not in heresy - unless you are going to say that an infallible Church is not really infallible (see question 1)
3. Protestants have a valid excuse, since they deny that the Church's infallible teachings are infallible. You, on the other hand, appear to be hypocritical by calling the Latin Church heretics, YET, proclaiming that the Church of the first millenium was infallible. Can't have it both ways, brother. Either the Church never was, or remains infallible in its teachings.
4. I can quote numerous Orthodox men who say similar things about Rome and the Latin Church. What does the Cardinal of Paris have anything to do with the question I posed to you?
5. The Pope is not sinless. Do you recall in the Scriptures when Paul found it necessary to remind Peter of his behavior in Galatians Chapter 1? The Pope apparently trusted that the bishops would do a better job of watching the flock. Isn't this the rule of thumb in the East? Allowing the Bishops to watch their own flocks without outside interference? Now, you say we should have a more centralized government of Church? Which would you prefer, NO Pope, or an overly disciplinary Pope? Seems you are arguing for BOTH simultaneously...
Granted, I would have to believe that MOST of the Popes of the past would have "come down harder" on those bishops responsible - PRESUMING that Rome even KNEW about what was happening! Do you think that the priests and bishops have some sort of daily report in to the Curia? As I said before, Rome doesn't deal with such matters until it is obvious that the Bishops can't handle things. In the sexual abuse cases, Rome allowed the US Bishops as a group to submit a plan of action - again, Rome doesn't micromanage. Rome here is not dealing with a matter of faith and morals. NO ONE ever questioned whether sexual abuse was WRONG or that the Church was taking the wrong stance! It was universally condemned. Thus, where is the "heresy"? While technically, the Bishop of Rome has the power to act within another Bishop's jurisdiction, in practice, that Bishop is expected to take care of things. You are misled in thinking that Rome has the inclination or desire to overrule the actions of how another Bishop runs his particular flock. As long as the Bishop is not teaching outright heresy, Rome generally stays out of such matters.
Shouldn't have the Bishops in the US settled the matter by themselves? Hindsight is 20/20. This says very little about the office of the Pope. At the worse, it merely says Pope John Paul II was not a disciplinary Pope (which history bears out as true. Most philosophical/scholarly Popes are not disciplinary types)
Regards