The insistence on celibates-only was also contrary to centuries of tradition, and to the Scriptures which specifically reference married bishops (1st Tim 3) and note that in contrast to Paul, the other Apostles were married and had a RIGHT to be (1 Cor. 9:5) -- including, I might add, "Pope Peter the First".
So if one valid discipline (celibate priests) can be arbitrarily imposed at the expense of another (married priests), for what probably seemed like good reasons at the time, why can't the reciprocal decision be made in a different era when different issues are at stake? I agree the problem is ultimately liberalism. But if allowing (or even requiring) married priests can help resist it, or mitigate its damage, why not?
Look, I'm an Evangelical for a variety of reasons which I won't get into here. But much as I may disagree with the Catholic Church on certain theological issues, I stand with you in the realm of public morality and I want to see you solve this sodomite priest problem as badly as you do.
One solves problems by addressing the real issue, which, as you agree, is liberalism. Abolishing clerical celibacy to address a temporary problem caused by liberalism risks permanently discarding a tradition that has proved valuable in the past for the sake of a palliative to a temporary problem.
>>>>>>>Look, I'm an Evangelical for a variety of reasons which I won't get into here. But much as I may disagree with the Catholic Church on certain theological issues, I stand with you in the realm of public morality and I want to see you solve this sodomite priest problem as badly as you<<<<<<<
I appreciate your good will toward the Church. Thanks.