Hermann,
To your comment, "...many of the criminals in the Priesthood were ordained in the 1950's and 1960's well before the homosexual takeover of certain seminaries in the 1970's and early 1980's":
If we limit ourselves to only pedophilia and pederasty, we limit the scope of the problem. There's much more to this. What of heterosexuals who were just not able to control themsleves, men who went into the priesthood with pure hearts and who just were not able to live by their vows, men who did as Archbishop Cranmer did before the death of King Henry VIII? It is said that he married secretly and kept his wife in a box as he travelled about the archdiocese. My wife has told me of her parish priest (in her youth), who had a "housekeeper" and that it was well known that this housekeeper was more than just that. There are many such tales.
I do not condemn these men. I say that all of this stuff has resulted from a system that is not based on reality. And I wonder. A lot is coming out into the open now. How much went on from the 9th century to the present that we will not learn of until the dread Day of Judgement when all must give account?
I am reminded of the words of the first Pope of Rome to the Council of Jerusalem: Act 15:10 "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"
Many Priests in the middle ages - especially in the rural parts of the northlands - were not asked to follow the law, whether they knew of it or not, and so a contrary custom was able to develop in those parts.
The stories of the Church authorities attempting to correct abuses around the time of Pope St. Gregory VII and later mainly center on France, and concerned priests who had vowed celibacy, but had not bothered to try to follow it.
The case of Archbishop Cranmer is simply another piece of the long story of men given over to lust projecting their distorted lives outwardly into the realm of doctrine. In the case of Cranmer, the "wife" you are thinking of was actually his second, and the second he had "married" AFTER his ordination.
I wasn't aware of the Orthodox Church campaigning for diagamists in the clergy, or clerical marriage after ordination, so I trust this isn't your point in bringing up such a sorry example. I would hope you could find it within yourself to condemn a man who broke not only the laws of the west on celibacy, but also the universal laws even upheld by the east against second marriages and marriages subsequent to ordination.
If those laws, which are the ones that Cranmer broke, are too heavy a yoke to bear, then the Orthodox East is as guilty of imposing this burden as the Catholic West is. Cranmer would not have faired better in the Empire or Muscovy.
The west does not force anyone to celibacy. Everyone who wants to be ordained has to freely chose both ordination and celibacy, or instead leave themselves free to marry. If someone feels that they cannot be chaste in the Priesthood though, married to their parish and foregoing intercourse with all women, there is little reason to suppose they will be chaste in marriage, where they oblige themselves to forego all women save one. Looked at from that perspective, and our Lord's warnings about lust in the heart, the committment hardly differs.