In +Paul's Epistles.
As well as in the Gospels, -- anywhere Christ is described as bridegroom of the Church either expressly or by parable.
My discussion of the relevant passages in St. Paul should show that I am not unaware of them. They also underlie the Orthodox clerical guidelines regarding marriage, which differ from those of Catholicism.
If you look at the context of my exchange with Forest Keeper, the question was asked, since clerical celibacy in the Roman church is a matter of discipline, not dogma, whether it could, in theory, be changed.
My reply was directly to that point -- namely that Orthodox celibacy guidelines for clergy are found in the canons of Councils that we consider to be Ecumenical, and thus only would only be able to be changed, if at all, by another Ecumenical Council.
Clearly, mandatory universal clerical celibacy is found neither in the epistles of St. Paul nor in the words of Christ. If it were that clear, we would find that clerical celibacy would be universal throughout every Christian body -- except those that chose to ignore Scripture.
Mandatory universal clerical celibacy is also not the universal Apostolic tradition -- if it were, we would find plenty of polemics early on in the East on the subject. As it is, there is no such record, and all the Eastern Churches -- including non-Chalcedonians -- have married priests. This goes back as far as we have records, and the decisions in Trullo codified customary Eastern practice. Married clergy were common in the West early on, and continued on here and there into at least the 11th century. Were this not the case, there would have been no need for the Roman church to go out of their spell it out. For that matter, there were clearly cases of married bishops in the East prior to Trullo -- otherwise why would this Council have felt a need to make very specific canons about this matter?
We know that clerical celibacy was mandated here and there in the West by local councils, and that it was mandatory and universal throughout the Western Church shortly after the Great Schism. The fact that Uniates were allowed to keep their married clergy, and that certain non-Catholic clergy who convert to Catholicism are ordained within the Roman rite in spite of being married (and are not required to become celibate within their marriage) indicates that Rome acknowledges that clerical celibacy is not a a tradition of the level of authority as, say, the all-male priesthood.
What I don't know the answer to, and thus my comment, is what level of authority decreed or confirmed mandatory universal clerical celibacy in the Roman rite, and thus, what level of authority would be required to reverse it. Of course, a Pope could change it by fiat, but current conditions make it unlikely that a pope would take such a step outside of some sort of council. Or that is my impression.
At any rate, annalex can certainly answer Forest Keeper's question regarding whether the local discipline of clerical celibacy in the West could be changed -- and if so, how.