In my very limited experience, about half of priests come across as swish, and the other half as masculine men.
Simply being swish is not necessarily sinning, but it is a poor example. If all the active homosexual priests left, the ones who resist temptation would find it easier to resist, and masculine men would find it easier to answer a call to the priesthood.
If we lose half our priests, 90% of our priests, let’s find more married deacons to run our parishes, and not, God forbid, some female parochial administrator. Let’s close our parishes and drive further. The Church can’t live with this rot.
Deacons, according to Canon Law and the Church’s ancient tradition, are bound to perpetual and perfect continence. This is the case because they are in Orders.
It is often said that priests are bound to perpetual and perfect continence because they are unmarried. I.e., being single, they are bound merely by the moral law to be continent.
This is an error.
Priests are bound to continence because they are in Orders.
Those who assume that: 1) deacons will always be more plentiful than priests because they are not bound to continence, and/or 2) the “priest shortage” can be relieved by “allowing priests to marry” (i.e., priests will not be bound to perpetual continence), are going to have to wake up in a decade or two, as this festering issue is resolved.