That bit about "respect" is quite funny, and I'm not sure whether Fr. McNamara is intentionally being ironic or not.
NYer: As for the Maronites, you might want to check on how that decision was made, historically.
I'm RC, but I frequently hang out with Ukrainian Catholics, and know that the first Byzantine Catholic priest to enter the USA in the 19th century was a Ukie priest.
He, of course, was married. The American Catholics were scandalized. They had spent a lot of time and money trying to explain to their fellow American Protestants that all Catholic priests were celibate, and now this Ukrainian priest shows up with a wife!!! (I forget whether he had any children or not.)
The American Catholic Bishops met and voted that all Byzantine Catholic priests on U.S. soil must be unmarried. And to my knowledge, that ruling is still in force today. (I say that on the basis of observation. I have never heard of a married Byz. priest at any American parish. I've met married Ukrainian priests in Canada, though. OTOH, my circle of acquaintances is not very wide in these matters.)
So the fact that all the Maronite priests in the USA are unmarried may not really be their own decision.
BTW, if you find anything out, please let me know. Thanks in advance.
If a change in that ruling was made, it was after V-2. So certainly, prior to the 1960s, married Maronite priests would have been forbidden to serve at US parishes by the US bishops.
Not quite. The American Latin Rite bishops asked Rome to require celibacy of Eastern Rite clergy outside their traditional territory. This Rome did, but that decree is contrary to (the later) decree of Vatican II on the Eastern churches, which would take precedence. So there's, AFAIK, no legal reason to prohibit married men from being ordained to the Byzantine or other Eastern rite priesthood in the U.S. Also, there are a few married Latin rite priests, so the Latin bishops would have nothing whatever to stand on if they tried to enforce that rule today.