Only it reminds me of that thing in "Importance of Being Earnest," Act 2, where Miss Prism says to Reverend Chasuble, "A misanthrope I can understand; a womanthrope, never!" To which he replies, "with a scholarly shudder," "Believe me, I do not deserve so neologistic a phrase!"

I find no theological objection to what you say about God here, and what God can and cannot do. I wonder, though, what "wallow in error" really refers to, and also "fix things." With the historical record in mind, God seems evidently to have allowed countless varying interpretations of the original revelation to flourish; by criteria both other-Christian and non-Christian, many of these look regrettable, or worse. Worship that god, if you like. Fastening on the masculinity of God and Jesus, as the RCC does, is just an interpretation, based on a particular way of treating first-century realities. That's all.