Diogenes hits a good point in relation to the “celibacy is the problem” argument. It comes in relation to his commenting on the Australian priest who said that the celibacy requirement was why he sexually abused a 15-year-old boy.
The view of marriage implicit in Gwillim’s remarks (i.e., 24hr access to a sexual dessert cart) is pretty shocking, but the reason gay priests are almost unanimously in favor of relaxing the celibacy requirement is that they want to see the Church cave, especially in the arena of sexual discipline. Partly they relish anything in the nature of a defeat to the notion of human nobility: if the Vatican relents on celibacy on the grounds that “we can’t keep the kids away from the candy,” it means conceding that we all remain children forever. Partly too they realize that if sexual abstinence is too much to demand of those who serve a deity, then the deity in question can’t be all that important. Both diminishments are key to their sexual politics.
It is pretty shocking and I’m surprised that liberals make the argument that if only a woman were at the sexual beck and call of her priest-husband, he would never stray. Can you think of anything less romantic and less ennobling of women than turning them into an object of sexual release? It goes to show that only the Church places women on the pedestal that they deserve, not feminists and their modernist allies.