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.
Aren't you confusing infallibility with impeccability? The office does not impart holiness to the individual.
891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
Now, if we could locate one of these sinful individuals that proposed for belief by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals that was contradictory to Revelation, infallibility would certainly be considered doubtful by any rational person.
>> 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? <<
No; their corruption lay in their TEMPORAL power, of the political influence of their office, not in the ETERNAL power, of their magisterial power to discern infallible dogma.
>> Even the most conservative Roman Catholic historians today will admit there were some pretty horrendous popes <<
Actually, that helps establish the virtue of the infallible office: that the sinfulness of certain popes did NOT stain the infallibility of the office.
>> otherwise Luther, or before him Hus, would have had no following <<
Well, Luther gave witness to a great many horrors in Rome, without seeming to notice the basic geography. It is possible Luther slandered, isn't it? I would say Luther's success depended a far greater deal on the unwillingness of German aristicracy to pay to fend off the Muslim invasion. (Did not in modern days Democrats lie about scandals to attack Reagan so as to weaken the defense budget so as to soften anti-commmunism?) Plus the horrors (famine, etc.) brought about by the sudden cooling of Protestant lands (you'll notice the warmer regions remained Catholic) made people believe SOMEBODY had to be doing SOMETHING very evil, which Luther capitalized on, claiming that the plague and the famines were the fulfillment of Apocalyptic prophecies of vengesnce against the Whore Babylon.