My point is that they shouldn’t have to take a vow. Jesus/Paul didn’t command that all priests be celibate. In fact he said it was better to marry than to burn. Some people are truly called to singleness. But it was your church who demanded celibacy, in part so the wealth of the church stayed in the church and not with the priests and their families.
You wrote:
“My point is that they shouldn’t have to take a vow.”
That’s not for you to decide.
“Jesus/Paul didn’t command that all priests be celibate.”
No, they didn’t, but they were both celibate. Jesus did, however, give authority in these matters to the Church End of story.
“In fact he said it was better to marry than to burn.”
He did. Right after he said this: “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”
So, St. Paul says it is good to stay unmarried, but to marry if you can’t control yourself. I agree with that entirely. So does the Church.
“Some people are truly called to singleness. But it was your church who demanded celibacy, in part so the wealth of the church stayed in the church and not with the priests and their families.”
No. It had nothing to do with wealth. It was not the wealth of a parish that was at stake, but the parish itself. In the Middle Ages, when people had little more than land and moveable property to hand done to their children, it was a terrible problem when priests tried to hand their parishes’ property onto their sons. The parish, after all, did not belong to the priests. It was donate by the faithful to the Church. It was not about wealth. It was about parish survival. And that was still a secondary concern. After all those most in favor of the vow of celibacy were those who came out of the Gregorian Reform Movement (which you probably never heard of) which was heavily influenced by Cluniac monastic reform.