[Antoninus]

If Mother Church ever decided to relax the discipline and make celebacy optional (as practiced in the east), would you have a problem with it?

No. "Whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven. Whatever you hold bound, shall be held bound."

Do you see no value in married clergy?

Sure. I believe that a celibate clergy is vastly superior.

Can't these men be as holy as a celebate priest?

Yes, of course. Can they be as available to serve and go wherever they're called as a celibate priest? No way.

Does it matter that a man once married finds he has a calling to serve God in the priesthood?

The callings, in my opinion, are separate ones. There are plenty of humble, non-sacramental ways for a married man to serve the Church short of the priesthood if he feels a particular calling. Heck, answer the phones. Clean the toilets. Mop the floors. Help with the books. Run fund-raisers. We have chronic shortages of such volunteers in our parish. Everybody wants to be a general - nobody wants to be a foot soldier.

[ThomasMore]

I believe that a celibate clergy is vastly superior.

Besides availability, in what ways?

Know that I'm not promoting the elimination of the discipline. I see great value in it. Just probing, as it were. But if celibacy is a calling, and I've been told that it is, then having some married priests wouldn't affect those who choose celibacy, would they?