Pardon me, but did I identify myself as an acolyte of Wills or did I say he wrote an "interesting discussion"?
The problem is not that the conduct of the clerical state was so Catholic, but that it was not Catholic enough. Pretty clear in hindsight, isn't it?
Not really. Your argument presumes that the seminary rectors have the ability to perceive homosexual tendencies, or, not mentioned in "Careful Selection And Training Of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders", tendency toward pedofilia, which are repressed by the candidate seeking ordination. At the same time, with the extradinory demands that the ordained be on a par with Christ and St Paul, the number seeking ordanation plumets, a fact well known to the seminary rectors.
We agree that clerical involvement in predatory pedifilia and homosexuality results from not be Catholic enough, but I disagree that humans, when acting on behalf of the Church and with the best of intentions are less, dare I say "fallible," than any other. Catholics should not presume to be any more discerning than any other group of people.
I am sorry. I think the Papacy has badly misinterpreted St Paul and Matthew 19. The rock upon which the church was built was married, yet now there is little to no room for priests of the same status. If Peter were alive today, his desire for ordination would be spurned. The result is the overepresentation of repressed pedifiles and homosexuals among those seeking ordination.
Second, it is true that seminary rectors cannot always perceive homosexual tendencies. But they ought not to admit as ordinands any man who has deep-seated emotional or psychological problems, including strong tendencies toward homosexuality or pedophilia, depressive disorders, drug or alcohol abuse, or any other such serious problem if that can be discerned beforehand.
Some seminary rectors acted in good faith, not knowing that particular seminarians had these problems. In other cases, there is a record of vocations directors willfully ignoring or defying instructions for the selection and training of worthy candidates.
You can read about it is "Goodbye, Good Men" and it is the sort of thing that poisons the Church and imperils souls.
If a man is not called to celibacy, he ought to marry, because he is not called to monastic or clerical orders in the West.
He could marry and become a deacon. That makes sense, doesn't it? Nobody has to make a vow he can't fulfull; nobody ought to.
Celibacy, like monogamy--- marital fidelity ---entails sacrifices. Celibacy is not easy and instinctual; but frankly, neither is monogamy. Thus everyone is called to live a challenging life of virtue, whether they are called to are celibacy or monogamy.
Of course, our corrupt culture declares that both are impossible, or are an unreasonable imposition on human nature. But a corrupt culture must not set the standards for the Church.