Newman was opposed to the idea of papal infallibility, but when the doctrine was proclaimed, he accepted it, although he didn’t like it. But that’s hardly a radical! However, the Times, as you say, does misunderstand the whole concept.
I’d really be interested to read Newman on papal infallibility, and his objections, because my understanding of the proclamation of the doctrine of papal infallibility was almost closer to establishing narrow theological limits on infallibility rather than expanding papal authority.