Don't confuse me with those who would promote celibacy almost to the level of infallible doctrine. I recognize celibacy for what it is: a discipline. Should our Holy Father change or eliminate this discipline in the near term (though I think that highly unlikely), my faith would be unaffected.
It is a discipline with a long pedigree, to apostolic times. That the Church took centuries to develop mandatory celibacy in the Latin rite doesn't detract from the fact that it is a gift highly-prized from the New Testament Church, by St. Paul himself. That the Church met resistance as it moved toward making this discipline mandatory is unsurprising. I would be careful, however, to assert that the fact that many successfully resisted this discipline for so long means that it wasn't the will of the Church to bring it about. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if historians, 500 years from now, will state, "Well, even as late as the early 21st Century, the Church still hadn't completely enforced mandatory celibacy, because we know that there were many, many priests who nonetheless married."
I haven't asserted that mandatory celibacy is on par with unchanging doctrine, and I haven't asserted that mandatory celibacy will be the right thing for the Church until Jesus comes again.
All I've said is that I believe that now is a time when we really need mandatory celibacy in the Latin rite. Nonetheless, it is only a discipline, and I accept the Church's governance with regard to it.
sitetest
The Latin Rite may need celibacy, but it has been moving away from the requirement for the better part of thirty years.
The married permanent diaconate was introduced in 1977 (interestingly, the Council of Trent advocated a reintroduction of the married diaconate), and the Anglican dispensation was approved by John Paul II in 1980 (this dispensation now includes Lutherans, Methodists, and one Baptist).
BTW, I'm glad your posting publicly. Your contributions are thoughtful, logical, and appropos.