On Peter's mother-in-law

Make sure you check out my previous article, here; Lenten laxity vs Lenten lenience vs Lenten legalism
Since I'm really exhausted, because of reasons, I think I'll write an article about this.
Now, I should say upfront, that there is a tendency with Latin Catholics, to, in their zeal of defending clerical celibacy, denigrate married priests. 5 Myths about Married Priests in Eastern Catholicism It should be noted, that I've had the privilege of knowing several married Catholic priests. Newsflash; the Catholic church has married priests.

Before we go any further, check out my latest on Locals. Coffee and Christianity: Episode 76: On loving your enemies
There are, of course, former Anglican (and sometimes other Protestant) clergy that are ordained as Catholic priests, but, as the article shared I shared shows, married priests are not uncommon in the Eastern church. They may, however, be unfamiliar to many Americans for reasons I explain, here; My name is great among the nations, saith the LORD
But one thing that baffles me, is the opposite problem. The tendency of Protestants (and, let's be honest, even some Orthodox and Eastern Catholics), to denigrate clerical celibacy.
I can't speak for Orthodox that oppose it (given that there are celibate Eastern Orthodox priests, and all Orthodox bishops are, so, I don't understand the argument), but one common Protestant one is from the following, “And when Jesus entered Peter's house, he saw his mother-in-law sick with fever. He touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she rose and began to serve him”. (Matthew 8:14-15)
Some Protestants will claim that this is proof that mandatory clerical celibacy is “Un-biblical” and that somehow this would disprove that Catholic teaching can't be biblical.
There are several problems with this claim. 1) It assumes that all Christian doctrine MUST come from scriptures (I do think there is a grain of truth to that, but not in the way Protestants mean, The Early Church Fathers on Scripture, thanks to my fellow worker in the vineyard, Mr. Sama), but where is the chapter and verse that says ALL doctrine must be found explicitly in scripture? 2) It assumes it's a doctrine. Clerical celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-to-argue-for-priestly-celibacy (good article, but not the best articulation of it, I like the author, but, I think this could be written better), and, 3) Calling something “Un-biblical” is a two way street. The Sinner's prayer isn't in the Bible, neither is an altar call, nor is women receiving communion. That doesn't mean they're good or bad, just one could make the same argument the other way around.
I think this argument fails on a few levels. It misunderstands the place of scripture, assumes that Catholics are unaware that Peter had a Mother-in-law, and assumes that this is an argument that Catholics haven't already addressed. To recap, 1) “Peter's mother-in-law” as an argument, doesn't work. Catholics know Peter had a mother-in-law. 2). “Clerical celibacy is un-biblical” doesn't work, because Catholics have married priests, 3) Claiming clerical celibacy disproves Catholicism based on doctrine, is an absurd argument, when you know that it's a discipline.
Yes, this means the Church can (and does) have married priests. No priestesses though, that ain't gonna happen.

I was going to share more verses, but, they are in the links I used. God bless!

Adam Charles Hovey is the host of the Catholicism, News, and Whatever community on Locals, and is the host of the weekly Bible study, Coffee and Christianity