Celibacy isn't a doctrine, by the way, it's a discipline, thus subject to review and possible removal (although this is highly unlikely, admittedly).
Now, as for the point of "celibacy has consequences", it only has consequences insomuch as some "cannot control themselves", thus, St. Paul instructs us, "they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion".
IOW, clearly what has happened with the pedophile priests is that they never should have been priests to begin with, and indeed (since most abuse was same sex) should have sought council for their addiction to the disorder known as homosexuality.
This however, does not show a negative "consequence" to celibacy; it simply shows that some in the priesthood were improperly ordained, or really, should never have sought the priesthood in the first place.
P.S. Simply because some priests may have been ordained that shouldn't have, that doesn't show that the Church is a failure, as a whole corporate body. It just shows that the Church is comprised of fallable human beings; this does not equate to the Church as a whole being corrupt though. Just a disclaimer for anyone who may hasten to draw that conclusion.
Excellent post.
In the late 50's and 60's vocations to the priesthood began to drop drastically. Perhaps the cause was the new emphasis on sexuality that began to dominate popular culture. Up until then, seminary applicants who showed the "tendency" were rather preemptorily discouraged.
But, then, a very weird thought crept in. I.E., if priests were required to be celibate, it was thought by some, that
What they were celibate from didn't much matter!
"After all," they argued, "since all sex outside of marriage is sinful, all the homosexuals had to do to be good priests is not have sex!"
Common sense did not rule the day. Tough-talking Tony, Archbishop of Philly, put it best: "Giving up the normal, i.e., the wife and family, is a heroic sacrifice. Giving up the sinful, is not." (I paraphrase)
This stupid decision, contrary to years of Church tradition, let open the floodgates to the point that many homosexuals flocked (good word) to the seminaries. So many, in fact, that it discouraged normal men from applying!
Now it's a real problem, because many priests one meets nowadays are, IMHO, if not sexually active homosexuals, at least very very light in the loafers! The new namby-pamby liturgy in the hands of these simpering clymers is enough to gag a maggot. Sermons delivered by window dressers and hair stylists? I don't think so. IMHO, of course.