I'll have to disagree. I think we've had so much thinking "outside the box" that we're having trouble remembering where the box is located lately.
You make several valid points. I have no beef with those married priests the Church recognizes. But I also believe, as the Church teaches, that the celibate priesthood is a superior rule.
And even if I thought it was a good idea, I'd argue against it at this time as a simple matter of pragmatism. The Church is reeling from an onslaught of bishops and activists who seem bent on changing absolutely every Church tradition within their own lifetime. I'll flatly state that I believe the wisdom of the current generation is inferior to the collected wisdom of the preceding generations - as represented in the traditions we inherited from them. We need to slow the heck down and give our predecesors the benefit of the doubt that perhaps they were not complete idiots for a change.
Actually, Snuff, this is my position. Ya gotta know when to do do nuthin'. The RCs have one major flaw, IMHO, and that is they think they are the only Catholics on the planet. Of course, they're not. If some churches want to keep celibacy of the clergy as a church rule, they certainly are entitled to do so.
If those born to Roman Catholicism wish to join one of the Eastern Churches, the Copts, The Syriacs,the Abyssinians, The Armenians, or whatever, what exactly is to stop them? It would in no way undermine their allegiance to the Bishop of Rome.
Actually, Snuff, this is my position. Ya gotta know when to do do nuthin'. The RCs have one major flaw, IMHO, and that is they think they are the only Catholics on the planet. Of course, they're not. If some churches want to keep celibacy of the clergy as a church rule, they certainly are entitled to do so.
If those born to Roman Catholicism wish to join one of the Eastern Churches, the Copts, The Syriacs,the Abyssinians, The Armenians, or whatever, what exactly is to stop them? It would in no way undermine their allegiance to the Bishop of Rome.