I already know that his take on church history is geared completely toward justifying his positions, and have access to bona-fide expert church historians who try to be as objective as possible, so that doesn't sound enticing.

Wouldn't his inability to refrain from teaching contrary to the Church impact his ability to provide "insights into what's wrong with the Church?

I would imagine his conclusion would be along the lines of it "it ought to adopt my views" or some variation thereon.