As the OP, I must say that I am confused. I am a cradle Catholic looking to answer my confused protestant friend who believes solely in the bible (not tradition and Rome, like we do) about priests not being able to marry and I still am lost.
She challenged me, “Show me in the bible where it says a priest cannot marry.” I want to defend my faith.
Roman Rite, Eastern Rite, Latin Rite. I am Catholic and don’t understand that. How do I sit there and explain, “Well, in this Catholic tradition it is accepted, but in this one it is not.” Doesn’t that make us seem wishy washy?
Aaargh!! I do not expect to be spoonfed the faith. I do not know the nitty gritty like you all do. All I know is I love the Eucharist and what that stands for. I can defend that.
You are a Roman Catholic who belongs to the Latin church. What you probably don’t know is that there are over 20 other Catholic churches in full union with the Pope of Rome. Some people call them the “eastern rites,” but they are actually the Eastern and Oriental Catholic churches. They aren’t wannabee Catholics or quasi-Catholics or groups who use the name Catholic when they aren’t really–they are all real and true Catholics with the real and true Eucharist. They aren’t Roman Catholics, though. Two of the people in this thread are Ruthenian Catholic. They belong to the Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui iuris. One of them’s bishop is Bishop John of Parma, Ohio. Bishop John’s senior bishop is Metropolitan Basil of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Metropolitan Basil has ties to the Oriental Congregation in Rome. The Oriental Congregation is under Pope Benedict. Out of those 22 Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches, 6 of them have their own patriarchs. Their patriarchs are in communion with Pope Benedict. The Eastern and Oriental Catholic churches have a different code of canon law than the Latin church. After the Eastern code of canon law, they also each have individual church laws. These laws allow them to ordain married men, as has been their unbroken tradition. They are fully Catholic, but they follow different customs, traditions, laws, hierarchical structure, prayers, liturgy, feast days, and more. It is a true testament to the universality of the Catholic Church that such diverse practice is found in unity.
I know this is a little confusing, but it is important you understand the above to understand the below.
The Latin church has a tradition of following the examples of St. Paul and of Jesus himself to have a celibate priesthood. This was not always the case, but it has evolved that way. The Eastern and Oriental Catholic churches retained the early church custom of having married men be ordained to the priesthood. The bishops are chosen from celibate priests, but parish priests are frequently and commonly married men. (Unlike someone above who hypothesized that it is not common, it is more common than celibate priests.) The reason this is more feasible is that the parish size is by necessity smaller. Only the priest dispenses communion. When people get tired of waiting half an hour to receive, they start bugging the men around to be ordained and start another parish.

Also, the sons and grandsons of priests are far more likely to enter the priesthood themselves as well. So the problem is not the work load of a priest in the west, but the lack of other priests to send some of that workload to.
There is no question that the Bible allows for married men to become priests, and even bishops. (Your friend’s church probably doesn’t have bishops. You might ask him why they aren’t following the Bible.

) The Latin church has called upon the tradition of the likes of St. Paul in currently restricting the priesthood to celibate men. While faithful Catholics may desire to see married men ordained in the Latin church in the future, they should not desire it as a cure to the shortage of priests. No windfall of deacons came forth after the allowance of married men to the permanent diaconate. The problem, as otjm stated very well, is a lack of faithful to call priests from.