Yes I think it should continue. A priest's parish is the family of which he is the father. It is good for his attention to be undivided toward that family. When you have children, your life is tied up in ways that you cannot entirely anticipate for two decades.

seigneur wrote:

In the beginning it was not a requirement and it still isn't on the Orthodox side of things.

Even in non-Roman rites of the Catholic Church, it isn't a requirement.

seigneur wrote:

There never was a proper reason to make it a requirement in Roman Catholicism.

What do you mean by 'proper reason'? It has always been, self-consciously, a matter of discipline rather than doctrine. Every reasonable party to the discussion will admit that some good things come of it and some bad things come of it. That is the standard context for authorities to make determinations regarding what is not morally necessary. (Should we drive on the left side of the road or the right? Should people be taxed at x% or y%? How should this prayer, to be made a non-optional part of our denomination's liturgy, be written?)
 

seigneur wrote:

Every reasonable party to the discussion keeps to the topic at hand.

Ah, but my point is very much to the topic at hand, for what would count as a scriptural basis for priestly celibacy depends rather on what form of command it is. If it were thought to be a kind of moral command of completely general application (it is always bad for someone to be a priest and to be non-celibate), then the fact that there is no sentence in the Sermon on the Mount, or somewhere similar, to that effect would tell against its having a proper reason.

But it isn't that sort of judgment. All one needs for a determination to be made by a proper authority is that some good is served by it. And there's plenty of scriptural basis for that. We have from St. Paul that it is good to remain unmarried, if one can. "An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife—and his interests are divided." If that is true, then it is far from incredible that a church should require its priests not to marry. For that conclusion, we don't need scripture to say "priests must be unmarried," and it's rather a lowering of the argumentative bar to suggest we do.

seigneur wrote:

Okay. So: "An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife—and his interests are divided."
 
What form of command is this? How is it a command at all? Isn't it both curious and telling that only Roman Catholicism derives an imperative from this verse and it only derives it from about 10th century onwards? Other major Christian denominations only see a good advice there or a mostly impracticable ideal.

Supposing that the Roman Catholic interpretation is correct, why should the correct interpretation arise some thousand years after the verse has been passed down? But this is a minor point. The major point is that the verse does not issue any sort of command.

I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that the Church doesn't view celibacy as something that is biblically commanded. Rather, it's a practice and could theoretically be dissolved at any point without transgressing against any higher command. Verses like these are often used by Catholics to support the claim that celibacy is advocated in the Bible, but I don't think many would say it's commanded.