note stony that there is no different theological perspective, especially on this matter which is more a discpline and is not a dogma or doctrine inany way.
Yes, I am aware priestly celibacy in the Latin rite is not a dogma or doctrine in any way. It is, however, more than a discipline. It is also a long-standing tradition (with a lower case “t”), and is a matter of canon law. As such, it can be changed according to the prudential judgment of the Holy Father, who may, at any particular point in history, decide that mandatory priestly celibacy should or should not continue.
Perhaps my use of the term “theological perspective” was less than ideal. There is a different way of looking at things, theologically, in the various rites of the Roman Catholic Church. There are different emphases, too. This is one of the reasons there are different codes of canon law, traditions, ways of celebrating the liturgy, and disciplines. They did not arise from nowhere. Nor did they arise only from historical circumstances. History develops partly from circumstances, but also from the perspectives, values, emphases, and personalities of those who make it. The eastern rite liturgies, laws, disciplines, and traditions are equally valid to those of the Latin rite. Yet they reveal (or emphasize) in many cases different aspects of the one infinite God.
By using the term “theological perspective” I did not mean to imply that the eastern rites have different beliefs. There is one faith, and the members of all the various rites of the Roman Catholic Church share that faith.