please read what the Church officially teaches on infallibility. It is NOT what you seem to think. It is NOT "human infallibility" but a human being proclaiming infallible truth.
I am aware of that (says so on Wikipedia!) and it doesn't change anything for me.
People have no way of knowing when a pope is proclaiming absolute truth (an absurdity in itself, considering the imperfection of language) and when he is being a fallible Human.
To preclude that possibility is to declare him humanly infallible. To not preclude it makes him an fallible human, who may just as well utter an absolute truth or untruth, just without the pointy hat.
With one small exception, which has to do with logical paradoxes.
Assuming the possibility of an omnipotent creator, he alone would be perfect. You would have to go beyond the bounds of logic to accept another being having perfection and free will at the same time.
If you do go beyond what is logically possible, then it follows that an omnipotent being can do what it wants, logical rules or not, and the imperfect being perfect then becomes a possibility. Faith has something to do with that, so I will extend that olive branch.
However, having experienced human beings my whole life, I remain sceptical at any notion of perfection/infallibility until the big guy himself deigns to inform me otherwise. Which I guess, assuming he is a loving god, he would probably want me to be.
It is NOT "human infallibility" but a human being proclaiming infallible truth.
Or TL;DR version: If the instrument has flaws, the music cannot be trusted not to have flaws.
(If you're feeling particuarly poetic, you may muse about the possibility of the odd imperfect note actually improving the score, fully in accordance with the opinion of the original composer.)