You wrote:
"Actually those are epidemic numbers."
Okay. And you have a ready source for that? I would like to see it just to see what an authority considers to be the differences between epidemic and pandemic.
"Just as society changed that prompted the papal decree enforcing celibate clergy in the Middle Ages when once married clergy were allowed in Western Europe so maybe societal changes may need the Catholic Church to go really old school again and allow married clergy?"
Nope. It also wouldn't be old school either. There have always been unmarried clergy. Will the Orthodox go "old school" and have married bishops? The Apostles were married as far as we can tell. They were really the first bishops. Will you go "old school"? Nope. You won't either. Deaconesses? Maybe only a little bit, right?
"In any case I don't understand your hostile - almost panicked like tone."
What? I am not hostile, nor panicked nor even almost panicked. I don't understand your deliberate ignorance and belligerence against the Catholic faith.
"While currently married clergy are restricted in the Latin church it would not be an apostasy or heresy if the Eastern Catholic style of married clergy rules were adopted by Western clergy. Am I right on that?"
No more than it would be for the Eastern Churches to ordain unmarried (celibate) men, no. You do it. We do it. We do it more often than you, but we both ordain unmarried men who never marry after ordination. It's simply no big deal.
For example: The total mortality of the 1918 influenza epidemic was 0.5 percent of the population.
So if you claim 2%-4% of Catholic clergy are sexual predators then those are epidemic numbers.