This thread is so depressing.
The primary basis for the requirement of celibacy is clearly the lifestyle example of Jesus himself.
The Church notes that the practice is sanctioned by the New Testament.
The law of celibacy has no doctrinal bearing in the Catholic Church--it is a mere disciplinary law. Even today, there are married Catholic priests in the United States. Each is a former Episcopalian priest who joined the Catholic Church. There are Uniate Churches, churches in union with Rome, e.g., the Greek Byzantine Church, who have a married clergy.
Ok, you didn't address the OP. The Eastern Catholic churches have a long tradition of ordaining married men to the priesthood; the OP is objecting to the fact that the Roman representatives don't respect that in this country.
Priestly celibacy became law in the Church in the 6th century.
Wrong. It became a practice in one part of the Church. But "the Church" in the 6th Century was both East and West, and in the East it was not law that all men wishing to be deacons or priests must be celibate. So it was not "law in the Church in the 6th century," since your statement is too broad.
But this is really beside the point of the question he was answering. The question was whether or not, since the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, there was still latinisation of the Eastern Churches. The answer has to be yes, by reason of the example, that Cardinal Ratzinger mandated clerical celibacy as a general rule for the Eastern Churches. This general rule allowed for some exceptions, but it was not in any way similar to what some of the Eastern Catholic Churches were asking for. They were asking for an abrogation of the general rule of celibacy as it was applied to them, and the answer from Cardinal Ratzinger was no. So the latinisation influence on the Eastern Catholic Churches has continued as is seen from this example.
Addresses the OP exactly.
Your percieving a disagreement where there is none my friend.
Your wasting your breath. I have no gripe with Priests being married if they can serve daily Mass and attend the confessional and to the people, i.e. Do their jobs and then be there for their Children and Spouses as they should. I would ask you though, what happens if a dying person calls for the Priest when His kid falls and breaks an arm?
I just think its better that they aren't both because Saint Paul said it was better. There should be nothing found condecending about the Gospel unless your in love with your passions and wish to deny what it says. Want the quotes?
The fact remains, there is no denial of both married and validly ordained priests though at the same time the Holy Gospel and ancient practice of the Church logically endorces that which provides for a singularly pastoral vocation.
The difficulties of sheparding a flock of believers and a flock of kids simultaneously is obvious don't you think? Stop making it about the Church when its clearly about a personal dicipline. If you want to be a married priest go be one, no one is going to stop you if you think you can handle two vocations at once.
*Sigh* - I'm glad you have no problem with married men becoming priests, because your Church does, and they're trying to force their traditional practice on churches to which mandatory clerical celibacy is alien (and THAT's the point of the thread). It is latinization, since mandatory celibacy is a Latin thing; the Eastern Churches are "Eastern" not "Western," and although they are in communion with the Roman Pontiff, they should be allowed to maintain their ancient practices. Now, in Europe, they are allowed to ordain married men as priests; but the OP is pointing out that in America the papal representatives are denying that same right to the Eastern Catholics.
Since you brought it up - yes, shepherding a flock and children is more difficult than only one or the other. I know firsthand, as the son of a priest of many years (he was ordained before my birth), and as one who will be getting married soon and possibly ordained shortly afterward. However, experience and study have shown me that it is not only possible to be a good priest and good father, it is very attainable. What about the whole "if you had the faith the size of a mustard seed you could say to this mountain 'go there' and it would move?" I don't know about you, but moving a mountain is much more difficult than shepherding 10 flocks and fathering 20 children. That's the point - no one is able without the help and strength of others (especially God's) to be a good priest, or a good father, or both.
However, your points about it being "about personal discipline," and not about the Church are irrelevant to the OP, which deals with consistency and justice and hypocrisy.
BTW: It is "about the Church," since mandatory clerical celibacy has been discussed at multiple Ecumenical Councils; and in the midst of many debates amongst many saintly fathers of the Church, only the bishops are required to come from the ranks of celibate men, not the priests, deacons, subdeacons, readers, cantors, doorkeepers, etc.
So let's discuss the point:
Why are the Orthodox wary of unity with Rome? Why do we not feel like an agreement could be reached when acknowledging the Pope as Pontifex Maximus, Bishop of Bishops, etc? Because we see the encroachment of Papal discipline where it was never intended to go, and where they have agreed (important point) to not go. It was part of the agreement with the Eastern Churches that they be allowed to ordain married men to the priesthood. In some parts of the world, this is still permitted (and thank goodness for that). In some parts of the world (the OP mentions America) it is being stifled. Why? Why go against the agreement? Why encroach where it was promised not to encroach? Why should we trust Rome with much (the whole Eastern Orthodox Church) when it is obvious that the situation over a little (the Eastern Catholic Churches - no offense intended with the "little" comment, btw - you're full Churches; I'm just referring to population) isn't being handled properly?