Hermann,
I'm not waging a campaign, just offering an observation as to human nature. The Latin discipline is simply on the wrong side of reality. But hey, if you want to defend it to your last breath, be my guest. St. John of Kronstadt prophesied that the day would come when the entire Roman Catholic structure would collapse. I may be very wrong, but I personally think this sex scandal thing is 1) just the tip of the iceberg and 2) the beginning of the end for the Latin organization. But that's OK. You go ahead and defend your system and I'll just watch from the sidelines as you fall. Agrarian and Kosta and MarMema and I could care less as to what sort of discipline the Pope of Rome cares to impose upon his clergy.
Then so is St. Paul.
The singular example you provided from history - of Archbishop Cranmer - was also a violation of your own system. If he is proof we are on the wrong side of reality, the proof goes against you also.
As to celibacy and chastity being contrary to reality, I must disagree vehemently. First, you do a disservice to all holy monks and nuns, and to the Roman priesthood, with such a proclamation, by declaring that they are living contrary to themselves, when the reality is that they are far more in tune with their trueself than the vast part of humanity. Second, you do a disservice to Our Lord and Lady, to St. John the Baptist, and many other Holy Prophets, Apostles, and Fathers, who also lived after this manner, by claiming that their lives and victory over the flesh was the wrong side of reality. Lastly you make a mockery of humanity, treating us as no better than animals in our ability to live chastity, and this even after the reception of grace.
That some people do not live chastely is because they do not wish to. If they wished to, and prayed for it, they would. THAT is reality, not the humans must have sex or explode into vice arguement, which is a vain modern reinvention of Freudian psychological error, a revival of the errors of Vigilantius and Jovinianus which were fought by St. Jerome and condemned by the Roman Church 1600 years ago.
I again invite you to familiarize yourself with the arguements against these errors.
Against Vigilantius - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3010.htm
Against Jovinianus - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3009.htm
If Catholic Priests WERE allowed to be married, we would then have a whole new set of problems introduced - that of clerical adultery and divorce, which we can see so often in highly publicized cases among Fundementalists. And we would still have offenders with young men, as you see also in your own Church, and as we see in secular society at large.
Marriage isn't some magic shield that protects you from all sexual immorality. Only the grace of God can do that, and that grace is not limited to the married.
You go ahead and defend your system and I'll just watch from the sidelines as you fall.
The fall will be you and your pride.
It seems to me that you would agree with this statement. It says exactly what you are saying. I wasn't aware that you are one with the Mohammedans in your beliefs.
Islam does not believe in unnatural life. It demands a life according to the law of nature. Hence, Islam does not approve of a piety which is based on the suppression of sensual urge of man. Proper channel for releasing sexual energy leaves a person physical and mentally satiated and satisfied. It gives a sense of relief and saves from depravity, degradation and sexual perversions. Observing asceticism and celibacy means unnatural, improper and unprincipled life.
http://anwary-islam.com/life/married-life.htm