Correct, celibacy is not a doctrine. It's a discipline required by the Roman Rite. The Eastern Catholic Church (fully in communion with Rome) allows priests (but not bishops) to marry. There are other rites in communion with Rome that allow married priests, so there is zero doctrinal reason that celibacy cannot be made optional for some priests (I don't think it would be practical for congregations and it certainly wouldn't make any sense for monasteries). Conservatives oppose married priests so such a move would meet with resistance though I don't think most Catholics in developed countries would object. Allowing men to marry would greatly expand the pool of qualified candidates.
Studies have shown that most priest sex offenders are not pedophiles. They are primarily men attracted to other men. Most of the abuse cases involve teenagers - this is not pedophilia. I think the abuse of teens is because priests are often around young people and the teens are obviously vulnerable. In the case of Cardinal McCarrick, abuse was with adults eighteen or over (seminarians). What McCormick did was despicable. It's very hard to understand how Francis could have covered for him and even relied on him for advice regarding episcopal appointments but this is precisely what happened.
The pope cannot follow the Anglican example and allow priests to marry other men. That would require a major doctrinal change which is not likely to occur any time soon. Is Francis really "conservative"? I'd say that he is "progressive" on matters involving sexuality but he can only go so far in what he says or does. My feeling is that by selecting liberal bishops and cardinals he is preparing the way for change down the road. The longer he lives, the more liberal cardinals will be appointed to the College of Cardinals which ultimately could affect doctrinal decisions. His biggest stumbling block are the African bishops who are very largely ultra conservative. The same is true of the Anglican Communion but in the case of Anglican bodies, Anglicans in the UK, US, Canada etc have largely gone their own way and done what they want despite African objections. The Anglican Church of course has no strong central authority as in the Roman Catholic Church.
Francis is in a sense living in a kind of Peronist time warp. He sees capitalism as an evil and seems unable to distinguish between capitalism with some controls and unfettered, exploitative capitalism. He seems to think that countries like the US and UK are laissez faire states with no social umbrella but this in fact is not true though there are certainly gaps, especially medical care in the US, that need to be addressed. The old Peronist formulas appeal to Francis, especially populism. He cannot seem to see any alternative.
In terms of the priest abuse crisis, Francis has done a miserable job. His words have been largely empty. He has spoken harshly of the victims, even calling their charges "calumny". Now with civil action being taken in the US, Australia (a prelate there has just been convicted of sex crimes) and elsewhere, he is being forced to act more responsibly.
that is a cover for all sins.....
