While I don't want to wade into the film / digital debate in general, I do want to comment on someone's point earlier that "we shouldn't compare apples/oranges" (in this case, MF film to 35 mm digital). For some, this discussion is a question of what "pure" maximum quality (however defined, subjectivity issues included) can be achieved with no regard for cost/size/time/ease of use. For almost everyone else in real life, it's an optimisation problem, with different weights and constraints.
I actually think comparing MF film to 35 mm digital may be valid, depending on the constraints imposed, and especially cost. Specifically, if you throw cost into the equation, most non-commercial photographers cannot realistically consider MF digital. MF film, however, can have a very much lower cost/barrier to entry - lower even than serious gear for FX/DX digital - while still providing a significantly different (possibly much higher) feel of quality.
On top of that, the depreciation curve for digital equipment is still so steep, that any "investment" in equipment is usually a serious loss when (if) resold. For used film gear, that depreciation has already occurred and (arguably) not that much additional depreciation is likely. So anyone buying MF film kit at this point has a pretty good chance of recouping a significant chunk of what they pay for it. MF digital might make sense for those generating serious cash with that kit, but not for many (most) others.
For those considering cost and who do not absolutely need MF digital (likely because clients demand), it may be entirely reasonable to compare smaller format digital and conclude that picking up some MF film gear in order to obtain higher "quality" makes sense. Compared to, for example, spending a grand or two on another incremental improvement in digital technology that will itself be leapfrogged or outdated in short order. Or compared to jumping up from DX to FX size sensors at this stage at possibly considerable expense. Or compared to dropping $10-$30k on MF digital gear. Or simply compared to seeing that more digital gear won't change the "feel" and the photographer needs a change. Or compared to spending more time as a photoshop jockey, and less time shooting with equipment that (for whatever reason) gives a burst of creativity 'cause it's new or quirky or whatever.