No, I did NOT miss the point. The author made a wholly illegitimate comparison and you are trying to rectify it by substituting one that is more palatible to you. But your "point" doesn't fit the context. The author suggested that papal infallibility could lead to the sort of lisenciousness found in the liberal Episcopal Church. You may not like papal infallibility but suggesting that it could be a mechanism for the acceptance of practicing homosexuals being elected bishop, or any of the other recent Episcopalian travesties is risible!
Contrary to the author's assertions, infallibility does not add to the Word of God; it is merely interpretation, and, with two exceptions, very literalist interpretations. But what it does is establish a set, authorized interpretation for all ages, so that once an ecumenical council or Pope denounces homosexuality, no liberals can later quibble, as they have in the Episcopalian church, over whether or not St. Paul merely meant temple prostitution when he condemned homosexuality; or whether the Old Testament proscriptions are still in effect.
And that is a protection AGAINST liberalism, not an oppportunity for it.
No, of course not...but can you say that several (if not many?) of the popes of that era were not utterly corrupted (even sexually) by the enormous power the doctrine of infallibility (as they understood it...) rendered them? Even the most conservative Roman Catholic historians today will admit there were some pretty horrendous popes in the late medieval (and most powerful) period--otherwise Luther, or before him Hus, would have had no following (and most of the monastic orders would never have needed founding...).
Lord Acton's aphorism on power applies...even (or especially?) in the Church.