My point is...The Catholic church MADE SUCH A BIG DEAL out of ‘can’t be married or a female to be a priest “...on and on, even putting down those who said maybe we should allow married priests.
If they had said, back then, well, we will look into that, there may be exceptions,its church doctrine but not irreversible...that would have been different. Now here comes the explanations why THIS OR THAT person is an “EXCEPTION”. The church has done the same thing with THE JOKE ABOUT ANNULLMENTS, in lieu of “divorce”.
For a religion and a church that is so dogmatic and black and white ( which is very ok with me, no problem having clear focus)....to here and there “make exceptions” with extensive “explanations” defeats the whole purpose of WHY we have the doctrines. You can’t have it both ways, be very traditional and INSIST on the boundaries, and at the same time modify them,then you might as well be Episcopalian.
I think you don't understand the difference between dogma, (which never changes once it's definitively taught), doctrine (which could conceivably change but almost never does), and questions of discipline or prudential judgement (which can change whenever the persons in authority over them think it's wise to do so).
The impossibility of ordaining women to the priesthood or episcopacy is dogma. It was infallibly taught by John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, and the Vatican at the time said that he wasn't teaching anything new, but was merely reiterating something that had already been infallibly known.
It can't change.
Not ordaining married men to the priesthood is a question of discipline and prudential judgement, reinforced by a long tradition, a lot of experience, and an Apostolic "druther" expressed in Scripture (1 Cor 7).
But it's still just discipline. There were married priests, and even bishops, and even perhaps a Pope or two, in the first millennium.
(We know from Scripture that St. Peter, the first Pope, was married at one point. Whether he was still married, or was a widower, when he met Our Lord is not clear.)
There have been married priests in the East (in churches in communion with Rome as well as those which aren't) for centuries, perhaps more or less continuously back to Apostolic times.
In the 1970s there was a vocal movement calling for permission for ordained priests to get married.
This is different from allowing a married man to be ordained a priest.
An unmarried priest getting married after his ordination was never the teaching or the practice of the Church in any age - no Orthodox church practices this either.
In the modern era this important distinction has been lost.
The church has done the same thing with THE JOKE ABOUT ANNULLMENTS, in lieu of “divorce”.
The granting of an annulment is, and has always been, a matter of discernment.
From 1970 to about 1990 the process of discernment was perfunctory and too many were granted.
That situation has changed.
to here and there “make exceptions” with extensive “explanations” defeats the whole purpose of WHY we have the doctrines
Again, there is a difference between discipline and doctrine.
The fact is, we do not live in a medieval world where pretty much everyone is Catholic and is raised Catholic from the cradle and non-Catholics are a tiny minority who don't really mix with Catholics.
An individual like Paul Schenck was a virtual impossibility when the canon law of the Church was being formulated.
But there are Paul Schencks today and the Church needs to examine their situation and respond in an authentically Catholic manner.
Likewise, in the Middle Ages, the notion of someone wanting to be married who had no intention of ever having children was unthinkable.
Yet in our contraceptive-minded world, such an emotionally abnormal disposition is increasingly common. In other words, there are far more people alive today who are mentally incapable of honestly contracting a normal Catholic marriage.
The Pauline privilege has always existed and it did not compromise Paul's strong doctrine on marriage.
You speak of "why we have the doctrines" - we have the doctrines for the purpose of accurately informing the world about the saving love of Jesus Christ crucified and inviting it to partake in that love through the sacraments.
I turn again to Paul who, although a strict guardian of Church doctrine for precisely this reason, insisted that discipline not be utilized to the extent of scandalizing the weaker brethren "for whom Christ died."