The ones which Catholic priests have, by their own vow, voluntarily accepted?
If that is the rules he meant, then I would suggest that taking vows that are not biblical is a bad practice, and the Bible has several passages which explain that ‘rock and a hard place’ you end up in when those vows commit you to things that you cannot be expected to fulfil.
However, I am completely on board with the idea that if a person takes a vow of celibacy to be a pastor, they should fulfil that vow. And when they cannot, they should resign their commission.
The reason I’m not sure your interpretion of the term “rules” as used by the other poster is that this article isn’t calling for that rule to be “bent”, it is saying that rule should be abolished.
So if that is “bending the rules”, that would be like saying that if a road has a 25 mph speed limit, but it is built for 50, everybody goes 50, and there is no reason not to allow 50, that petitioning to change the speed limit to “50” would be saying “people can’t behave, so let’s bend the rules”.
“bending the rules” would be to keep the speed limit, but ignore people who break it, or force people who break it to pay some small fee as “penance”.
The article provides examples (which I have no idea whether they are true or not) alleging that the Church was in fact bending the rules by selling rights to have concubines to their “celibate” priests, and only balked at someone openly flouting the rules.
As I said, I’m not agreeing that this really happened, I don’t know and there’s no newspaper reports about it. I’m just saying that of the two sides in the hypothetical debate in the post, it was the celibate side of the argument where ‘bending the rules’ was found, while the “marriage” side was arguing that the rule should be abolished, to prevent greater sin.