Actually, it’s not just a matter of “discipline.”
Cf. the blog of Dr. Edward Peters on the subject of clerical continence.
First of all, it is necessary to get the terms right. Anyone who is unmarried is “celibate.” For some reason, the popular press never uses the term “continent,” always misusing the term “celibate” instead.
The tradition, going back to the Apostles, is that all men in Orders must be perpetually and perfectly continent—whether married or unmmarried.
Canon Law on this subject is clear, and is in perfect continuity over the centuries: All Deacons, Priests, and Bishops are bound to perpetual, perfect continence. The restoration of the permanent diaconate by Paul VI brought about NO CHANGE in Canon Law on this subject.
Far from being a “mere discipline,” the perpetual continence of all clerics is intimately bound up with the nuptial meaning of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Church’s Eucharistic Realism.
If Francis entertains fantasies of a married priesthood, then it’s just one more example of his uneducated, bull-in-a-china-shop approach to deep issues of Catholic theology.
But I’m talking about married clergy being a discipline, not celibacy/continence.
Are you saying that unmarried clergy is not a discipline?
The belief that the question is doctrinal in nature is one that I believe is very much in the minority in the Roman Church. Further your statements are contradicted by the existence of married clergy in the Eastern Churches, including those in communion with the Roman See.
Thank you for your insight.