Top of page 53 referencing priestly responsibility

“responsibility for humanity to the Lord, who in turn takes on the burden of all of us to the Father.”
Does this mean that priests take on our sins too?

Yes, they do. In a twofold sense, both grounded in the priest’s acting "in persona Christi (“in the person of Christ”). 1. In hearing Confession and giving absolution, Christ, acting in and through the priest, takes on the sins of the penitent. 2. The priest takes on the sins of the world, just as Christ did: he recognizes sin as Christ did; he is sorry for sin as Christ was; he offers him self in propitiation both at Mass and in his whole life, in union with the Crucified. (And he is the mediator of the Father’s absolution–which is the Resurrection of Christ.

So, in my train of thought, if we allow amarried priesthood, we would be going backwards to a natural priesthood and thus denying the true priesthood of Our Lord. We would end up with rabbi’s (teachers) because no sacrifices can be offered because there is no temple and thus no priesthood needed.
Their whole argument makes absolutely no sense. A priest in Persona Christi is the true priesthood who offers his totality, bearing all the sins of everyone exactly as Christ, to the Father. What logic is there in having a double life with a split personality? I can’t wrap my head around their argument. Africa is exploding with priests. Can’t we solve the Amazonian lack of priests with African priests?