What's no big deal to you is sacrilege to another Catholic.
Seems to me that the non-Catholics are on the same page about a married priesthood, that is that they see no need for it, there is no Scriptural support for it, and that it's only hurting the Catholic church by drastically cutting into the pool of men who could be priests.
It's the Catholics who have the division over it. They simply can't agree with their take on how, when, where, why, and by whom, the whole priestly celibacy thing came into being.
We see it as a useless convention at best.
With Catholics bemoaning the dearth of priests, the easiest solution which has no moral issues attached to it is to allow a married priesthood.
But nooooooooooo.......
Can't go against *sacred tradition* or whatever they're using to justify it.
You're shooting yourselves in your own collective foot.
The whole idea won't be accepted until it comes from a Catholic source.
Interesting how the personal preference of a protestant in the need vs. not need (i.e, useless) aspect of the question precedes scriptural support. I declare that is not needed, therefore I will find scriptural warrant for my stated policy position.
“With Catholics bemoaning the dearth of priests, the easiest solution which has no moral issues attached to it is to allow a married priesthood”.
Celibacy has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Do not allow homosexual men in the seminaries and the sex abuse problem is solved. And by the way most protestant clergy that are involved in sex abuse are homosexuals. Why don’t you start commenting on all the sex abuse cases involving protestant pastors and let Catholics worry about the Catholic Church?