I’m not sure I understand the connection between a problem of homosexuality in the priesthood, and the potential for somehow addressing this through permitting (but not requiring) priests to come from the pool of married men. Same-sex attracted men would still (presumably) be interested in the priesthood at the same rate as before, since celibate priesthood would still be an option or the default under your proposal (and you’re trying to increase the pool, not hold it steady by adding some men and losing others). Is it your position that the Church is currently accepting same-sex attracted men into the priesthood knowingly and intentionally, for the sole reason that not enough other men are pursuing it (AKA are you arguing that the Church is willing to ordain people ill-fit for the role just to meet quotas… but if that were the case why wouldn’t they have done the desperate move of allowing married priests already?), and that therefore increasing the pool of other men pursuing it (specifically married men) would enable the hierarchy to stop their current program of knowingly ordaining same-sex attracted men despite believing they’re unfit for the role?
I don’t know that I’ve ever seen data to support that the above is what is happening (or that permitting dispensations for married priests would serve the role that the above proposal presumes)… rather, my understanding is that the orthodox seminaries only let same-sex attracted men through if the men are successful at deceiving the seminary, whereas the seminaries that ordain same-sex attracted men on purpose are doing it because they literally think it’s fine… so in neither case is the seminary making an intentional ‘sacrifice’ for lack of other men applying… but the above was honestly my best attempt at connecting those two dots you just put down.
Was the rationale I put together the way you were thinking of it?
If so, do you have evidence to support this position (or any of the other 3 positions, though you said that none of them are at “the heart of [your] platform”)?
You’ve said the celibacy discipline should be based on “the circumstances in the Church”. Then at the same time, you’ve acknowledged that the circumstances I mentioned (plus the homosexuality one you raised) are the ones you’re thinking of… but they’re not “the heart” of why you’re pushing for this.