That old canard is raised once again - that somehow if Catholic Priests were “married” that those few that sexually abused children (really homosexuals abusing boys) would somehow have been avoided. Nonsense.
Are you going to give an argument or just make an assertion?
Prove it.
What evidence do you present to support your claim that it is a canard, and nonsense? Do you think that happily married men are as likely to have homosexual pedophilic relationships with young boys as self-proclaimed celibate men?
I’m not arguing that the point is proven, just arguing that your post disproves it. It seems a rational idea to explore, in my opinion, not one to be dismissed flippantly.
On the other hand, I liked the article more for how it relates to another topic that came up recently at FR, wherein we discussed what makes the “original church” the original church, and whether there are changes in canon such that some splinter of the church may better claim the roots of the church than the Catholic church.
I hadn’t thought about the change in celibacy rules as one of those examples, but this article raises that point. Not sure what to make of the article’s claims about priests being in a higher class of being than the lay-folks. Hadn’t really thought about that or studied it.