I agree with much of what you're saying. Celibacy, as an ideal, certainly can be a powerful good in the life of the Church.
14th century? That's nice, but that was a time when the avenues for advancement open to intelligent young men in the 14th century were rather limited to, as I wrote above, the military, the Royal bureaucracy, and the Church. Giving up the natural joys of family life might seem acceptable to a bright young man who was on fire for his studies and desirous of rising in the world.
But that's not the way it is now, and not the way it has been for at least the past century. Career choices for bright young men are nearly limitless. Why give up sex and family and endure 8 years of higher education when one can get the higher education and keep the family and still be a good Catholic?
Heterosexual vocations began to dry up 70 years ago. The seminaries responded by ignoring the rule against homosexuals in the clergy. As time passed, these same gays became entrenched in the Church bureaucracy and they naturally began to make their presence felt in terms of de facto policy.
Homosexuality was preached from the pulpit when I was growing up in Green Bay in the 70s. Priests openly carried on. Many young boys my age were molested.
So, it might well be true that celibacy can be a real boon to the Church. But it's also clear that it has become the bane of the Church in modern times.
Do you see my point?
I see your point, but would argue that for most of the history of the church many clergy were cynical, corrupt, or had other terrible failings. When did the Jesuit Order ever have a good reputation?
I suppose it is not limited to just the church and clergy. In several empires, eunuchs were renowned for their service, but always with the warning that they should never be given real power.
So is bad the price of good? Perhaps. But to lose good out of the rejection of bad or evil would be a tragedy.