The apostles were married.
Numerous Early Church popes and bishops were married.
Eastern Catholic churches are filled with married priests.
Anyone claiming that married priests are less suited for the priesthood, or in some way poor quality or non-priests is denying the history of the Catholic church, and the practices of the church as a whole.
What is it specifically that makes an unmarried man so worrthy in the Latin rite, but a married man just as fit in the Easten rite within the same church body (The Roman Catholic Church)?
This is not an argument of scripture, religion, or doctrine, but one of history and tradition.
The Church does not say that the celibate priesthood of the Western Church is a matter of faith. It is a matter of discipline. Theoretically, it could be abolished or amended tomorrow. But don't bet on it. There are lots of good reasons why the West has embraced celibacy for priest, many of then based on the writings of St. Paul already quoted on this thread.
Since it is a matter of discipline, and not one of doctrine, there is no inherent contradiction within Catholicism byt virtue of the existence of a maried Eastern clergy. They simply do not choose to mandate celibacy in their priesthood. And even in the East, bishops *must* come from the ranks of the (many) priests who never married.