Replies

The Catholic Church in the West (Latin) has both celibate clergy (priests) and non-celibate clergy (deacons). It's the way we're organized, and it has recognized advantages, e.g.

the Bishop can transfer his priests around at a moment's notice, without having to worry about dislocating the wife and kids;
the priest doesn't have to earn enough to send his kids to college or even pay for their health insurance;
his availability to his parish is 24/7 and undivided by the huge responsibilities of a family, etc. etc.
celibacy has its own theological significance as an imitation of Paul and, for that matter, Christ.
Arthur McGowan can elaborate on this much better than I can

It has recognized disadvantages, too, principally in that the numbers of men who choose (or are called to ) celibacy are always much smaller than the numbers of men who are not.

Note that 21 of the 22 Churches of the Catholic Church (i.e. under the jurisdiction of the Pope) do have married priests. Only the Latins do not. If I were a man who felt a vocation both to marriage and the priesthood, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't demand that the ONE branch of Catholicism which has a celibate priesthood, should change their rules for me!

There are three ranks of clergy in the Catholic Church: deacons, priests, and bishops. But, if I can ask this without offense, why do you ignore our married clergy, the deacons? It seems to me that your objections, whatever they are, fall apart when you consider that there are 10's of thousands of married men around the world who have received the Sacrament of Holy Orders in the Western (Latin) Church in the Permanent Diaconate.

You speak of choice, yet you seem to be against men having all these choices.