A high ranking cleric in the Vatican II sect let it be known that clerical celibacy is not doctrine but merely discipline (true), and hinted that Antipope Francis was "open" to changing it. Dismantling every last vestige of Roman Catholicism is what "Pope" Frankie is all about; and it seems clerical celibacy (a tradition known by everyone) is on the chopping block.
The so-called "conservative" wing of the Vatican II establishment is trying to downplay the report, and is quick to remind us that most of the early Bishops and priests were married (as are some Eastern Rite priests today). They wrongfully think this will end pedophilia scandals and stop the shortage of "priests." While it may boost their numbers, it will do nothing to end pedophilia scandals, and I guess it only makes sense that a invalid "mass" stripped of all notions of sacrifice should be recited ("offered" is a meaningless term here) by a minister devoid of the spirit of sacrifice in the service of the crucified Lord. How many realize that the Eastern Rites only allow married men as priests (who must remain celibate if their wife dies and can never be bishops), but that a single man must remain celibate just as in the Latin Rite? How many are aware that there are excellent reasons the Church mandated celibacy? Very few outside of Traditionalists, as Modernists will never speak of such things.
I came across an article by George Sim Johnson, who wrote a particularly salient part about the call to abolish clerical celibacy in the Vatican II sect, and why it's so wrongheaded. I reproduce it here:
"The other argument against celibacy is that the Church's requirement of continence is a primary cause of the sex scandals. Plying their Freud, "experts" like Richard Sipe argue that a lack of sexual outlets drives priests into pedophilia. But the recent scandals have little to do with pedophilia, a clinical disorder whose incidence among Catholic priests is no greater than among the general population(this assertion I disagree with and Johnson gives no citation for it.The Vatican II clergy is rife with pedophiles due to the number of homosexuals that were let in beginning in the mid-1960s.--Introibo ad Altare Dei). Rather, the majority of episodes involves homosexual acts with teenagers or young men, and it may be wondered how marriage would solve this particular problem. It is clear that not a few homosexual men have entered the priesthood partly as a "cover" for their condition. Arguably, it would only make matters worse if they had to take on a wife as additional camouflage. In any event, it wouldn't stop some of them from going after teenage boys, as has been amply demonstrated in other clerical milieu.
It should also be pointed out that Freud was wrong about the nature and effects of "sexual repression"—in other words, abstinence. He considered it the taproot of all neuroses, and the sexual revolution has been driven by his idea that such "repression" is a very bad thing. But we all know celibate priests—and laity, for that matter—who are adjusted and well-balanced. We also meet promiscuous individuals who are not. Freud nonetheless taught that the libido is a pressure that builds relentlessly to the point where it demands release, as in a steam engine; and if you don't find a sexual outlet, you become neurotic, or even worse.
But, in fact, our sex drives don't work that way. There is no build-up of pressure in the central nervous system, and the libido doesn't plot revenge if for whatever reason one is continent for a period of time. It largely depends on what "messages" one allows to get through to it, which is why the Church has always taught the necessity of guarding one's eyes and imagination. This is not Puritanism, but self-possession; and all Christians, not just Catholic priests, are called to this heroic struggle. The more likely neurotics are those who separate sex from married love and, in the process, compulsively turn people into objects, into a means to an end. The sexual revolution, which amounted to a willful misreading of human nature, has failed on its own terms, but there are still those who want the Church to buy into it.
In a world that has absolutized sex, a celibate priesthood is a necessary sign of higher things. It's tough, but then so is Christianity. Those who wish to abolish celibacy generally favor other dilutions of Catholic doctrine and discipline. They are pursuing an essentially bourgeois project. They think that Christianity is fine so long as it makes no demands and, as a corollary, that the Church should turn itself into yet another liberal Protestant denomination."
Indeed, the COMPLETION of turning the Vatican II sect to a liberal Protestant denomination was the plan of the Modernists all along. As far back as 1907, Pope St. Pius X condemned this following error of the Modernists in his prescient encyclical Lamentabili Sane:
65. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism.
The so-called science that tells us it's unhealthy to be celibate and that sodomy is normal is what drives the Vatican II sect, as Frankie tells us "who am I to judge" sodomite clergy. Who are you indeed, Frankie? Whatever else can be said of you, one thing is for certain---you're not the pope.