Show me one post where a non-Catholic said otherwise.
The point that we've been making about having a married priesthood is exactly that. That it would prevent the priesthood from becoming a safe haven for homosexuals. IOW, it clearly recognizes that homosexual infiltration has occurred. Can you all afford some reading comprehension lessons, or will you just try to stop filtering everything through your anti-Protestant lenses?
Priestly celibacy makes sense administratively, theologically, biblically and in all manner of other categories.
Except Scripturally where even GOD didn't require a celibate priesthood for His Jewish priests.
As an aside, this whole protestant obsession with what is "needed" and "not needed" is merely a rationalistic tendency to serve self.
Nobody said anything about needed or not needed either. We recognize that allowing a married priesthood would free up many married men to fill the role and ease the burden on the Catholic churches because there just aren't enough single priests to go around.
The suggestion is offered as a solution, one that most RC's gasp in horror over.
Given your last post to me, I'd say your own words could refer to your own reading comprehension skills and bias as well.
I can think of several. They usually conclude with the tagline, "False doctrine breeds corruption."
Nobody said anything about needed or not needed either.
Exhibit A: "If it's not doctrine, then there's no need to demand it, then is there? - Post #108. It must be an unconscious thing.
The suggestion is offered as a solution, one that most RC's gasp in horror over.
I don't think so. Eastern Rite Catholics have married priests. And we have married priests according to the Anglican Ordinariate. If anything, it's a solution in search of a problem. But this is one of these issues in which, not unlike liberals judge-shopping to enact their policy preferences, protestants go Pope-shopping for changes to Church discipline to suit their preferences.