Since your topic deals with Catholic doctrinal error, I thought it would be worthwhile to check with a Catholic translation … to see if these clear points exist in “their Bible”. Here are the 3 scriptures in the New Jerusalem Bible:

14 And going into Peter’s house Jesus found Peter’s mother-in-law in bed and feverish.

5 And every right to be accompanied by a Christian wife, like the other apostles, like the brothers of the Lord, and like Cephas?

2 That is why the presiding elder must have an impeccable character. Husband of one wife, he must be temperate, discreet and courteous, hospitable and a good teacher;

Since these “clear scriptures” ARE clear (even in a “Catholic certified” translation), I can see why the New Catholic Encyclopedia grants this point by saying:

“Although we do not find in the New Testament any indication of celibacy being made compulsory either upon the Apostles or those whom they ordained…”
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm)

The article goes on to explain or “defend” why the Catholic Church DOES require celebacy of it’s priests.

Jeff … your scripture choices clearly establish the biblical & New Testament example of a “married clergy” … I am hoping you can take this one step further by making some comments on the “scriptures & reasoning” used in the New Catholic Encyclopedia article on “Celebacy”. This would provide some further support for the case you are making, and hopefully provide some pointers on how to analyse a “doctrinal defense” (to something you are establishing from the title of your article as “doctrinal error”).