I think there are good and bad ways to suggest mandatory celibacy is a factor. What I absolutely won't accept is the idea (obviously immoral when spelled out but disturbingly common in coded form) that if only priests had approved "outlets" in the form of wives then they wouldn't feel the "need" to additionally groom and rape children, vulnerable adults, penitents, etc., as if people who are married to clergy in other churches or other religions are the thin red line separating their spouses from transmogrifying into Humbert Humbert.
Situational sexuality is absolutely real (in addition to prisons and mental institutions it also shows up in single-sex schools, militaries in general and navies in particular ("rum, sodomy, and the lash"), and, yes, monasteries and convents), and I think it explains some of the weird relationships and situationships we see amongst priests and amongst seminarians--some of which are themselves abusive in nature; McCarrick primarily abused seminarians and young priests rather than minors, although he did abuse minors as well--but I think abusing children is on a different order and tends to be caused by much deeper issues in someone's personality.
What I think the existence of situational sexuality does work very well as an argument against is the belief held by some, including unfortunately the new USCCB President, that if only we could turf out all the homos from the seminaries and populate them with straight-shootin' turbo-cishet John Wayne types then all our troubles would be over. Many of those men would not stay straight-shootin', turbo-cishet, or John Wayne-like for very long.
Situational sexuality is usually a sign of psychological distress at the situation someone finds themselves in, not necessarily a conscious choice. It's, as noted, often wrapped up in hierarchical/power systems.
Absolutely. Sorry for the oversight and thanks for the addition.
