"Here's the first affirmation of the Catholic Church's stance on priestly celibacy. Expect others to follow."
The discussion of celibacy versus non-celibacy as a way of growing the number of priests is a red-herring in my view.
Dynamic, orthodox diocese that take vocations seriously will continue to have priests whether they're celibate or married. Heterodox diocese (and parishes) that are more interested in bringing a particular social agenda into the church will continue to wither.
I think discussing married priests as a way of increasing vocations is simply an oft relied upon excuse for poorly managed diocese. "Oh, but we'd have more vocations if we only allowed married priests." No, you'd have more priests if you actually inspired young people to dedicate their lives to Christ.
As for the eastern churches, I do believe that they should ordain married priests, particularly in the U.S. But that's based on the organic tradition of the eastern churches. Eastern Catholic churches simply have married priests, and it's been that way for hundreds of years. It works for the eastern Catholic churches. One size doesn't need to fit all.
The practice of requiring clergy to do something Christ didn't even demand of the apostles, and the first popes didn't even demand of themselves is in my view a red herring.
It's been that way from the beginning. St. Paul's letter to Timothy and his letter to Titus are witness to the apostolic tradition of ordaining married men to Holy Orders.
It works for the eastern Catholic churches.
It has worked fine in the Latin Rite as well. From the early centuries onward. The Latin Rite chose mandatory celibacy much later on.
One size doesn't need to fit all.
True! Yet I wonder how many married men have been called to the priesthood but cannot answer the call because they are members of the wrong rite.