Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
It is better to stick to Scripture, stick to the facts, and stick to history, rather than making things up out of whole cloth and then passing them off as doctrine or dogma.
The Bible mentions that Mary was married to Joseph. The Bible mentions that Jesus had brothers and sisters. It is not unreasonable to conclude that Mary and Joseph had a happy marriage and that other children followed Jesus’s birth.
On the point of celibacy. There is absolutely no requirement in the Bible whatsoever that priests must be celibate. To the contrary, priests were married men in the Bible. Further, according to Timothy 3:2,
“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach.”
Which is why to be faithful to Scripture - which is not the supreme law for Rome, nor is the weight of its substantiation the basis for the veracity of her claims - means one must dissent from Rome, like as the church began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses.
That is the normal and most reasonable expectation, or at least that the oneness of marriage and love was expressed sexually, which is how Scripture describes marriage as and sanctifies the marriage bed, and which is to be held unless the notable exception of a cleave-less marriage is stated, as it was in the only other know case of such.
However, this is not a salvific issue, unless Rome makes it so, which it can be considered as since it is taught as doctrine.
But the fundamental difference btwn the NT church and that of Rome is that of the basis for assurance of Truth, that of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, versus the assured veracity of Rome. It is due to the latter that is the reason why perpetual Marian virginity (PMV) is held to, not because Scripture teaches it, nor the unanimous consent of Tradition.
And which is why it is claimed the church of Rome (AKA "the Church") was never wrong or contradicted itself, as she autocratically defines what is right and wrong, and what is a contradiction, and compels Scripture to conform to her.
Faced with internal contradictions (such as subjection to the pope being necessary for salvation in the past, and which could include torturing and exterminating theological dissenters, then later affirming Prots as brothers and sisters in Christ), some RCs will restrict the field to infallible teachings, but non-infallible teaching can be both binding as well, and what magisterial level teachings fall under, including how many and which ones are infallible can be subject to interpretation, as well as their meaning.
Meanwhile, the manner of egregious extrapolation RCs engage in trying to justify things which were simply not seen in the NT church testifies Scripture being reduced to the status of a servant compelled to support Rome.
On the point of celibacy. There is absolutely no requirement in the Bible whatsoever that priests must be celibate. To the contrary, priests were married men in the Bible. Further, according to Timothy 3:2,
This is true, except that NT pastors were never titled "priests" by the Holy Spirit, and they do not have a uniquely sacrificial function. See here and here .
Celibacy is a gift that not all have, and to require all (except certain clerical converts) to celibate is presumption. And thus in contrast to being a normative requirement for NT clergy, it was normative for both elders/bishops as well as apostles to be married - and was even invoked as a positive preparation — and those that were celibate were free to marry. (1Tim. 3:1-7; 1Cor. 9:5)