As is patently obvious every single time it is tossed out here whenever a FRoman Catholic wants to impugn "Protestants", boast of a superior "Bible", condemn Luther (wrongly, BTW) or mock those as somehow missing out on the "fullness of the faith".
I've repeatedly asked for their favorite passages in those books or to name a doctrine devised from them that either isn't taught anywhere in the universally recognized canon or which doesn't contradict them, and NOBODY has yet answered the challenge.
I've come to the conclusion - over the many years this topic has been argued - that the real reason these books are defended is because "their" church made it a matter of their authority to determine what is Scripture and, therefore, their authority OVER Scripture. Whether or not the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha can be logically or intellectually proved to belong in the canon - which they cannot - is beside the point. Rome's defenders simply MUST stand by any decision made as de fide even when there is substantial evidence against it because they know that not doing so opens their religion up to doubt in the many other areas where this has happened. Luther and the Reformers are mocked for holding to sola Scriptura, yet, as we can see every time this kind of discussion takes place, the value of relying upon the infallible word of God for the basis of our doctrines will never fail.
True: if Rome sanctioned married priests then RCs would come to defend it just as they defend mandated clerical celibacy, as what the assured word of God - the Scriptures - says is not what matters, but what Rome says, and therein is the conflict .