I am currently engaging in an exchange with the blogging Preoteasa, or "Priest's Wife", who runs the popular blog, "Fear Not Little Flock". It was in response to a post entitled, "You Know You're a Priest's Wife When ...".
I basically take the position that the Western practice of a celibate priesthood as enshrined in its theology is incompatible with the Eastern practice of a married priesthood.
I believe that this is merely the logical extension of the argument made by Dr. Peters with regards to Canon 277 (for which he was unjustly criticized by many with a number of fallacious rebuttals, reductio ad absurdiams that did not address the issues, and arguments from ignorance by those who had not read his article and those who were too uneducated in the pertinent issues to really form a proper opinion). Dr. Peters seems to imply (in the above link) that this is pretty much where his research has led him to as well. Dr. Peters and I kind of "partnered" in debating Deacon Bill Ditewig and other deacons and lay people on Deacon Bill's blog.
Here is my argument in a nutshell (although it has covered a lot of other side-issues):
""I say it is illogical because of Paul VI's encyclical, "Sacerdotalis Caelibatus". He begins by saying that many want the Church to make celibacy optional (as they do in the East), but then goes on to give 12 reasons why it is better to have a celibate priesthood than a priesthood which is generally married (as in the East). Now, if he were to have said, "both Eastern and Western traditions are good, we have each done them this way for centuries, and each works for their respective rites", then I would not say it is illogical. But as it is, Paul VI went on to state why it is better, for 12 different reasons, to have a celibate clergy than a married clergy. Realizing how this reflects on the Eastern practice, Paul VI makes the attempt to synthesize in paragraphs 38-40, but does so unsuccessfully. It remains a contradiction. If I were to press the Holy Pontiff or those who defend his position further, this would become clear.""
I have posted this paragraph twice, and I have yet to receive a rebuttal.
As per Priest's Wife's suggestion ("I doubt that jen will come back to comment because she doesn't like to 'take over' someone's blo- maybe if you click over to her blog and question her, she will answer"), I went to the blog of one of the people arguing against me - Jen - and posted further comments on her blog. Her response was to deny me access to her blog henceforth and to post the following on my blog, in the combox of the post in which I announced my return to blogging: "please use your own blog as a bully pulpit and stay off of mine".
Priest's Wife also ended the conversation, saying "I believe that it is time for you to publish your thoughts on your blog. I wish you well- but I do not agree with your conclusions." In other words, she said I was wrong, but did not say or show why I was wrong nor respond to my points.