Of course there is "reason," since instead of doing so or saying so, the only manner of pastorate manifest in the NT church (as well as in the OT) was one in which they were normally married, and which raising children well is presented as providing credentials for pastoral fitness.
Meanwhile celibacy is presented as a gift, and it is hardly tenable to require or presume all pastoral candidates must they gift, nor is there ever any pastoral requirement to be so. To restrict candidates for the pastorate to those who have chosen celibacy is therefore contrary to the NT church and Scripture (not that this is determinitive for Catholics). The only Scriptural argument you can have is that is no reason that the church cannot possibly allow those who have chosen celibacy to be candidates.
You betray your lack of understanding of the meaning and etymology of the word priest: Old English preset probably shortened from the older Germanic form represented by Old Saxon and Old High German presto, Old Frisian pressure, all from Vulgar Latin *prester "priest," from Late Latin presbyter "presbyter, elder," from Greek presbyteros.
You betray your lack of understanding of the meaning of the word "etymology."
Etymologies are not definitions for etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and evolving changes in form and meaning. over time, and does not define what they originally meant. For example, "cute" used to mean bow-legged; "bully" originally meant darling or sweetheart; "Nice" originally meant stupid or foolish; "counterfeit" used to mean a legitimate copy; "egregious" originally connoted eminent or admirable).
The etymological fallacy here is that of erroneously holding that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily essentially be the same as its original or historical meaning. "Priest" evolved from "presbyteros," if with uncertainty, with presbyteros being considered and called priests early on, and who were later referred to in old English (around 700 to 1000 AD) as "preostas" or "preost," and finally resulting in the modern English "priest," thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never using the distinctive term of hiereus for NT presbuteros, or describing as them as a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers. (who nowhere are assigned a unique sacerdotal function).
If you have an objection about its usage then you should object to its use to translate the Hebrew kohen and the Greek hiereus. Old English actually had a different word, sacerd, derived from the Latin sacerdos to translate these terms. Unfortunately, this has dropped out of English and thus forcing us to use the single term priest to translate two separate terms in Greek.
Christ via His Holy Spirit is the one who chooses what words to use for priest, and for NT pastors, and the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for priests in the NT is “hiereus” or “archiereus (over 280 times total, mainly as the latter)” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) and which is never used for NT pastors.
Nor do the words presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) - which He does use for NT pastors (over 60 times) - mean "priest." Neither the Hebrew word, "ko^he^n," nor the Greek word "hiereus," or the Latin word "sacerdos" (plural, "sacerdotes") for priest have any essential connection to the Greek word presbyteros, and sacerdos has no morphological or lingual relationship with the Latin word for “presbyter” (for which technicalities I rely on the knowledge of others, by God's grace). An Orthodox historian scholar admits that "the word "priesthood" is itself a corruption of the Greek "presbyter." (John Anthony McGuckin, "The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture)
Of course, is Catholics would simply follow links posting this reproof would not be necessary.
The fact that Paul remained unmarried and called others to follow his example belies your private interpretation of Scripture.
Which is more sophistry, for the very example Paul provided was one who "manner was" to reasoned out of the scriptures with those who knew them, (Acts 17:2) and who wrote Scripture which teaches just the opposite of requiring clerical celibate!
Indeed, if "follow me" meant to be as him in every particular, so that (among other things) all were to be celibate as him, then Paul would be contradicting himself!
All of which is proof that Catholics did not change the Bible as Muslim assert, for they did a very poor job if they did. For the RC version would read something like,
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a priest , he desireth a good work. A priest then must be blameless, celibate, having no wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, apt to teach, fit to confect the Eucharist, not given to too much wine...One that will rule well his own house, having his spiritual children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own body, how shall he take care of the church of God?) (1 RC Timothy 3:2-5)
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain priests in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, being no husband of any wife, that he may have faithful spiritual children not accused of riot or being unruly. (RC Titus 1:5-6)
For I would that all men were even as I myself, for every man hath this proper gift of God, especially to live after this manner as befits priests, and while the laity may be married. (RC 1 Corinthians 7:7)
For we have not power to leading about a sister, a wife, nor do the other apostles, nor the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? (RC 1 Corinthians 9:5)
Exactly. I never said that there is a Scriptural reason that they must be celibate, only that the Church is free to require it as matter of discipline (the exercise of the Power of the Keys). I reject the unbiblical notion that present day disciplines all require a biblical precedent.
The etymological fallacy here is that of erroneously holding that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily essentially be the same as its original or historical meaning.
In this case it is not an etymological fallacy since the term priest has continuously been used in its original sense to referred to the New Testament office of presbyter as represented by the Catholic priesthood. That it has also gathered to itself a second meaning to refer to a sacerdotal ministry does not take away from its original and continuous meaning.
Christ via His Holy Spirit is the one who chooses what words to use for priest, and for NT pastors, and the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for priests in the NT is “hiereus” or “archiereus (over 280 times total, mainly as the latter)” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) and which is never used for NT pastors.
You are attempting to use a circular definition when you use priest for hiereus in your argument. Since the original and continuous meaning of priest is NT presbyter, and not hiereus, I will restate your argument:
Christ via His Holy Spirit is the one who chooses what words to use for sacerdotal ministers, and for NT priests, and the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for sacerdotal minister in the NT is “hiereus” or “archiereus (over 280 times total, mainly as the latter)” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) and which is never used for NT priests.The proper conclusion of your argument that we need two different terms is to reintroduce sacerd into English to refer to sacerdotal ministers and stop referring to them as priests, which is a NT term for the Catholic priesthood.