You stated: "It's up to each rite as to how far they go in returning to their own traditions."
And it's up to the Holy See in Rome to determine what is best for them. Pius XII warned about archeologism in 1947. The Liturgical Renewal that led to the Novus Ordo is proof that the warning was warranted. But, if some particular rite decided to go back to extreme penances for example. The Holy See would have the duty and every right to quash that if they deemed it necessary.
Also, many of the supposed "enforcements" of "latinizations" were freely adopted by the Maronites and may have had practical considerations.
Rome also intervened with great respect for the married clergy as a tradition held. What Rome stomped on was the "re-marriage of Maronite clergy" Since celibacy for the clergy was orginally adopted totally in the East and then became and abuse that was tolerated by the Holy See. Give them an inch and they take a mile.
Rome also had to regulate the number of bishops they were consecrating. They adopted mentioning the name of the Pope in the prayers. The Filioque was also added to reinvorce the understanding of the Trinity and keep them on the straight and narrow regarding orthodoxy.
And, since the U.S. was missioned by the Latin part of the Church, and married clergy is a prime issue among the enemies of the Church, it is wise that the Maronite clergy are forced to adopt a practice that the Orientals once held and is of a higher order in spiritual practice than the married clerical state.
It's actually a brilliant pastoral move. It reinforces the teaching and wisdom of celibacy and reinvigorates the spirituality of the Eastern rites. That prevents the enemies of the Church from playing one part of the Church against the other.
"Since celibacy for the clergy was orginally adopted totally in the East and then became and abuse that was tolerated by the Holy See. Give them an inch and they take a mile."
Where did you get that idea?