And I'm not talkiing about Eastern Churches. I'm talking about the Roman Catholic Church, of which I'm a member. I'm not a cafeteria Catholic who picks what pleases me.
Summary of the clerical continence debate and response to a recent Roman statement thereon
The married male clergy issue is completely separate from the wacky Womynpriest rot. There have been married Catholic deacons and priests for well over a millennium, though not in the West; and no, the married Eastern priest or deacon was typically not abstinent, not separated from his wife nor living with her in the brother/sister mode.
I am not, by the way, personally in favor of changing the discipline of celibate priesthood in the West. I think there are significant spiritual and well as prudential reasons to uphold celibacy. But it's possible to take the other side without heresy, and without being somehow allied with the feminist priestess faction.
The parts of the Church which have married clergy are also pretty sturdily patriarchal, you might notice.
I'm just reminding everybody that the Eastern Catholics are Catholics, married priests and all. In union with the See of Peter in Rome. With not a shade of doubt that their Sacrament of Holy Orders is valid.