Yet celibacy is a requirement to be a bishop so surely there intrinsic goods in it as well that make one more suitable to pastor the Church as a bishop.
While I'll defer to ialmisry wrt what he meant, I think it's important to make a distinction. AFAIK, the requirement is not for a bishop to be "celibate", but a "monastic". Obviously, celibate chastity is a part of the monastic life, but it's not because of that alone that we choose bishops from among the monks. Monks lead lives of prayer, and we want people grounded in a life of prayer to hold such positions in the Church (e.g., there are canons requiring a candidate for ordination to have committed the Psalter to memory...that's not because rote memorisation of Scripture is a requirement, but rather because it means they are faithful to frequent and daily prayer). Monks live in community, they know how to be obedient and also, if they've held office in a monastery, how to govern souls in obedience to them, they know how to manage the goods and properties of the community, etc., etc. Inasmuch as a monastery is a microcosm of the Church, monastic experience is a good thing for bishops to have. It's not just about avoiding "defilement" by women.
When "celibacy" is severed from "monasticism", as the RC's have done, there are bound to be problems.