I don't know if you think this is stylistically right, but in terms of
onscreen rendering performance and readability it's hard to beat:
http://ernestinefont.com/
Plus the ample width makes for a nice contrast with your headings.

hhp

I agree with the width-contrast, but I am not convinced they will work together. As a bodytype it is a bit too much I think?

For print design, I agree - for one thing it's a big
advantage to have thick/thins. But the screen's
limitations make that particular point flip-flop.
Or do you mean it has too much character? I think
the "g" might be borderline, but with some exposure
is probably accepted by the reader fine actually.

See this: http://buddhistischer-kreis-erfurt.de/

hhp

Yes, I meant it has too much character (I am not native english speaking so sometmes I am struggling for words).
Especially since Matchbook has a lot of character as well. I am afraid the whole site will become a typeface circus. I will try to copy-paste some text from that link into my design to see how it behaves.
Thanks for your help btw.

You might be right.

hhp

Why not start with a font you like and then ask, what design would complement this type?

Thank you for the suggestion, but that is simply not an option.

Yeah, in terms of proportions Ernestine might be a bit much of a contrast in this case...

In case you weren't aware: for prototyping/previewing purposes, there are a bunch of webfont preview sites out there that let you quickly preview what your site would look like with other fonts.
You can try Ernestine and others from FontFont at http://fontfonter.com/
Webtype has the Font Swapper: http://www.webtype.com/tools/swapper/
& there are other such tools, but my brain is shot at this time, maybe someone else can help out?

Is there consensus that you need to change the body font? I like it.

Thanks all for the help/suggestions. It seems this design is going to be postponed for a few months...sigh. Oh well, at least that gives me the time to find a good type ;-)