Heck, you don't even comprehend the difference between matter of faith and morals (doctrines and dogmas) and matters of discipline.
Christ gave His Church authority to lose and to bind. He gave it the Keys of the kingdom.
This pertains to interpretation of scripture and Tradition (doctrines and dogmas) as well as binding and loosing in matters of discipline (clerical celibacy, meat on Fridays, mass in Latin versus mass in English, etc.)
If the Pope says tomorrow there can be married priests, that is fine by me. Maybe I'll even become one, who knows?
But since it is simply a matter of discipline that can be changed, and Christ granted His Church authority of such matters, I'm certainly not going to get worked up over it.
Celibacy is eminently defendible from scripture, despite your silly protests otherwise, it is historical, despite your revisionist history otherwise, and I'll take the guidance of Christ's Church over your fallible doctrines of man any day, thank you.
So do you consider the selling of indulgences a matter of faith and morals? Yes or no?
In case you don't know, selling indulgences offers the forgiveness of sins in exchange for money! It wasn't just the penalty of sin that was offered for sale, but the actual release of guilt. The church's official documents offered plenissima remissio peccatorum (full remission of sins) in exchange for money.
You should note that the primary reason for Luther's rebellion against Rome was the selling of indulgences, and Pope Leo responded to Luther by issuing a Papal Bull that threatened excommunication to those who failed to preach and believe that the pope had the right to sell indulgences.
If selling indulgences is a matter of faith and morals, then the doctrine of infallibility falls flat on its face, because the Catholic Church now recognizes it as wrong practice. If, however, the selling of indulgences is not considered to be a matter of faith and morals, then something is seriously amiss.
Maybe I comprehend these things more than you think.
Yes, celibacy for clergy is defensible on a scriptural basis. But so is marriage for clergy.
Can you be more precise about the "revisionist history" that I'm supposedly writing? Are you saying that Peter wasn't married? Are you saying that other apostles weren't married? Are you saying that celibacy for clergy dates from the early days of the church?