In all fairness, celibacy serves a very strong purpose, though one often not recognized. To have sex, and to reproduce, are very taxing on a person’s life. And while there are some people who seemed designed to reproduce and raise children, many are not.
Those who preserve their strength, and refrain from sex and reproduction, however, can commit that energy to things of much greater value to everyone. The can have the fortitude to stand up when all others fall down.
And, as has been observed over hundreds of years of murderous regimes, that even with a concerted and brutal effort, priests and nuns are terribly hard to wipe out.
The Catholic church in all its glory likely only exists in its current form because of this strength. No other institution can claim such durability, unless they also practice chastity.
And while the failures of the clergy has long been tolerated, those clergy that can overcome their base desires make it all worthwhile. As one can read in Boccaccio’s Decameron, of the 14th Century, the corrupt and unfaithful and debauched are always there; but also there are the honorable and faithful and pure, who while not notorious, represent the real strength and character of the church.
I agree with much of what you're saying. Celibacy, as an ideal, certainly can be a powerful good in the life of the Church.
14th century? That's nice, but that was a time when the avenues for advancement open to intelligent young men in the 14th century were rather limited to, as I wrote above, the military, the Royal bureaucracy, and the Church. Giving up the natural joys of family life might seem acceptable to a bright young man who was on fire for his studies and desirous of rising in the world.
But that's not the way it is now, and not the way it has been for at least the past century. Career choices for bright young men are nearly limitless. Why give up sex and family and endure 8 years of higher education when one can get the higher education and keep the family and still be a good Catholic?
Heterosexual vocations began to dry up 70 years ago. The seminaries responded by ignoring the rule against homosexuals in the clergy. As time passed, these same gays became entrenched in the Church bureaucracy and they naturally began to make their presence felt in terms of de facto policy.
Homosexuality was preached from the pulpit when I was growing up in Green Bay in the 70s. Priests openly carried on. Many young boys my age were molested.
So, it might well be true that celibacy can be a real boon to the Church. But it's also clear that it has become the bane of the Church in modern times.
Do you see my point?