"The Catholic argument is that a single man will devote all his energy to his congregation, while a married man would end up short-changing his congregation because he must also devote time and energy to his wife and children."
That's one argument amongst many. And not one of the more persuasive ones in my view.
A more persuasive point to me is that the implicit assumption of so many of the arguments against a celibate Priesthood is that if a celibate Priesthod is allowed, well then gosh golly we would have a bumper crop of new vocations! Yet little evidence has been presented to date that would show that celibacy has much of an impact on vocations. Vocations in the Protestant churches are suffering right now as well; you can't blame celibacy in that case.
FWIW, I don't agree with a celibate Priesthood....for the eastern Catholic churches that already have a long tradition of married priests. As for the western Catholic church (Roman Catholic) changing it's traditions, well that's an internal matter for the western church to look at and decide. Judging from the recent synod, I'd have to say that the answer is a pretty clear NO.
"How can that be squared with letting an exception to the rule here? It really makes no sense."
I think we'd first have to be clear about what we're talking about when we're discussing "the Catholic church." The universal Catholic church is actually comprised of 23 distinct churches. The western (Roman Catholic) church, which is just one of the 23, does not generally allow for married Priests. However, historically speaking, there have been exceptions to that general rule. The eastern Catholic churches (the other 22 churches) have by and large allowed married Priests, but not married Bishops. But there are exceptions to that general rule as well, mostly in Canada and the U.S. where married eastern Catholic Priests are about as common as hen's teeth.
As for allowing the exceptions in this case for Episcopalian priests, I personally agree with it. Remember that these are priests already who have left their previous church, converted, and humbly asked to become as Catholic Priests. So are they supposed to give up their families as well?
There is such a thing as being so rigid in observing a rule that it becomes an injustice in itself.
Why do people keep bringing in the Eastern Orthodox Church, Coptic Churches, etc. This is just a red herring, and meant to confuse the issue.
The Roman Catholic Church is the dominant Church in America and South America, so let's not bring irrelevent information about other Churches.
I am critical of the Roman Catholic Church's policy, if that clears matters up.
Please no more references to the Coptic and minor churches.
Not so. The Maronite (Eastern) Catholic Church does accept married men to the priesthood but does NOT allow them to serve outside of Lebanon. As already pointed out in post #29:
Cardinal Nasrallah Pierre Sfeir, patriarch of the Maronites of Lebanon, said (at the October Vatican synod):
“Half of our diocesan priests are married. However, we must admit that the marriage of priests, even if resolving one problem, also creates other serious problems. A married priest has the duty of taking care of his wife and children, to ensure their education, to secure for them a certain social standing. The priesthood was also a means of social promotion in Lebanon. Another problem arises for a married priest, that of not having misunderstandings with the parishioners. Despite this, it can be the case that the bishop cannot transfer him, due to the impossibility of his family to move with him.”
The Eastern Catholic Churches have much smaller congregations in the US, than their Latin cousins. In the Maronite Church, ONLY CELIBATE PRIESTS may serve outside of Lebanon. The Maronite Church is the 2nd largest of the Eastern Catholic Churches.