It is. The rule was changed because priests at the time were immensely powerful and wealthy figures, and the Church didn't like the idea that their property would pass on to their sons rather than reverting to Church ownership upon their death. Since that isn't a problem today, changing the celibacy rule made by men for the profit of men and allowing priests to marry would be positive, 100% consistent with the Church's mission, and would help dilute the effect of pedophiles who currently seek out the priesthood in inordinate numbers.
Your source for that information?
That just doesn't make any sense.
The problem is not with pedophile priests, it is with homosexual priests, and allowing priests to marry won't change that. NOT allowing homosexuals into the priesthood is the only thing that will.
Allowing priests to marry wouldn't keep pedophiles out, either. Pedophiles can be married, and most are. They seek out employment or situations that allow them access to young children that few would question. Being married gives them 'cover' to do their dirty work.
??? Parish priests were "immensely powerful and wealthy" if your standard for power and wealth is "able to read, even some Latin, not required to sleep in the same room with the pigs, and not treated like the slave of the local noble".
Bishops were frequently immensely powerful and wealthy, but they were generally made bishops because they were powerful and wealthy, not the other way around.
And the "celibacy because of greed" argument is historically bogus; celibacy was mandated in the West from before the time of Constantine. The Lateran council reiterated the customary discipline because it was being abused, quite openly in places.
Re: "The rule was changed because priests at the time were immensely powerful and wealthy figures, and the Church didn't like the idea that their property would pass on to their sons rather than reverting to Church ownership upon their death."
Gee you are good. I have enough trouble reading the mind of the fella next to me let alone people who have been dead over 1000 years. A source would sure be nice right about now.
I don't know much about Cardinal Keith O'Brien's particular paper trail--- but I do know that he'll never get in trouble for discussing the calling of celibate vs married men to the priesthood.
That's because this particular topic is something faithful Catholics are free to debate.
Unlike all the other "disputed questions" which are really NOT open to dispute (women priests, contraception, sterilization, abortion, homoseuality, infanticide, euthanasia, etc.) priestly celibacy is NOT one of those unchanging things.
Clerical celibacy is a valuable part of the spiritual patrimony of the West. It has been practiced virtuously by hundreds of thousands, or maybe even millions of priests over the past 1000 years. But it is not an INTRINSIC feature of priesthood per se. There have always been married priests in the Church, there are now, and there always will be.
Without at all putting down the married priests in the Easten Church, I myself think that a celibate priesthood is a good thing and I would like to see the practice maintained and strengthened.
However, we do have to be able to make a distinction between things that, while holy and good, are of human custom or judgment(e.g. the celibate priesthood, the liturgical calendar, patron saints, the office of Cardinal, the Roman Curia, Gregorian chant, the age at which one receives First Communion and Confirmation, etc. etc.) and the things which are of divine or apostolic origin.
Otherwise you get thrown for a loop when something (changeable) gets changed, and you blanch and cudgel your brains and wail "That's it! Dagnabbit! I'm not goin' to church anymore..."
Distinguish between doctrine and custom. It'll save you a lot of grief.