Allowing married men in the case of an extremely small number of converts does not show that the theology falls short; and for that you only need to go to Paul VI when he wrote that the allowance of a few exceptions '' does not signify a relaxation to the existing law and must not be interpreted as a prelude to its abolition'' (SC, 43). I realize that most people think that they are theological prodigies, but Paul VI knew, I am sure, more theology than all of us goof-balls on this forum combined. Add that to Pope John Paul II - who was the Pope who actually did accept the converts as priests - who upheld the holy practice of priestly celibacy beautifully in his encyclical ''Pastures Dabo Vobis,'' and it's your theological opinion against a number of real theologians. All that the allowance of a few, miniscule exceptions says, theologically speaking, is that ''Virginity, undoubtably, as the Second Vatican Council declared 'is not, of course, required by the nature of the priesthood itself''' (SC, 17). But that was never in doubt in the first place.
One part of the theology of priestly celibacy is wonderfully presented by Pope Paul when he wrote that Christ remained celibate ''wholly in accord with [His] mission'' (21). That is to say, it wasn't accidental or a coincidence, but His celibacy itself has theological meaning. The same sign of universal love and total dedication to the Father through a conjugal union with the Church is imaged in the priest's imitation of Christ's celibacy; but this is only an effective sign if it's a function of the Western priesthood itself, rather than the individual devotion of the priest. Itaque, while a few exceptions have been occasionally allowed, as a whole the western priesthood images the celibacy of Christ, which is wholly in accord with the mission of Christ, and, by extention, also in accord with the mission of the priest who acts In-the-Person-of-Christ (not just by saying 'this is my body' at Mass, but by actually living as He did).
Finally, ''logistical and financial issues'' are both bad reasons for opposing married priests. If those were the only objections a person has to married priests, then he should end the illusion and sat that he's for married priests - even though it won't matter, because it's not going to change. That is because serious proponents of abolishing the rule gave up on the theology when they realized they had no argument; but it's for theological reasons that celibacy will stay.
