Why Catholic Priests Can Say 'Do You?' but Not 'I Do'

Its an age old controversy, one that has been raised again and again as the Catholic church continues to be scrutinized because of the abhorrent behavior of some of its priests. We've all heard it asked before, but I'm asking again now. Why can't priests get married?

For those not tremendously involved in the goings on within the Catholic church (myself included), when we hear about priests being gay or priests raping young boys, we oftentimes think, maybe that wouldn't have happened if they were allowed to be married. Lets face it. If an adult is going to commit a non-consensual sexual act with a minor, or any person for that matter, then obviously there are issues here that are beyond the matter of marriage. But on the other hand, if priests were allowed to marry, thus having the opportunity to commit to a consensual relationship with a woman, this may abate their sexual aggression. (For those thinking that all of these men would have committed these sexual acts regardless, take a minute and think about what happens to men and women within the prison system. Sexual repression is a very real issue and not one to be taken lightly.)

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. So why can't priests get married? Many Catholics cite biblical passages as proof that priests lived a solitary, celibate life. But what about Peter? He was able to spread the word of God as well as support his family. Who's to say priests can't do both? The fact is that a priest not being able to get married is not dogma, its Cannon Law. This means that it is not something that is set in stone, the Catholic Church could change this law if they wanted to. So why don't they?

Many people believe that priests should not get married because if you have a family, you will put your family first instead of the church. At first glance this statement seems valid, I know that I would put my family before my job (but then again I'm not a priest), so this idea leaves room for much debate. Scripture teaches us that we should always put God first for if we follow him on earth, once we die, he will lead us into the kingdom of heaven. The bible teaches us that if we give all we have to the church, then we will be rewarded eternally.

So if followers of the church are supposed to sacrifice all they have in order to be rewarded, then I can only believe that those who spread the word of God would naturally sacrifice even more, i.e.: put the church before their family. A follower of Jesus Christ commits to spreading the word of God, I don't see how having a family would change this or lessen this.

Many Catholics argue that a pastor who also has a family will naturally have a divided heart and therefore will not be able to adequately run a church. Its one thing if you're a manager at the local Applebee's and you do your job simply so that you can provide for you and your family; people will think you're crazy if you put Applebee's before your family. But being a priest at a Catholic Church is a bit more of a commitment, one that I don't see being taken lightly. (The statement above is not intended to degrade either workers of Applebee's or members of the catholic church, it is simply meant to show that comparing the job of a priest to any other job is like comparing apples to oranges. The level of commitment is completely different, therefore who's to say that priests are not capable of both running a church and running a home.)

When you are a man of God you don't put any one thing first and another second. We are all equal in the eyes of God, therefore everything should be treated as it is, the level of importance should not be significant. A priest should love, himself, his family and his followers all equally and should love God above all. He should spread the word of God and live his life like all Catholics are taught to. Live free from sin and you shall reach the kingdom of heaven. So, while I can't deny that there is much scriptural and historical evidence that does support the celibacy of priests, there is also evidence that up until the 3^rd century, married priests did exist. Therefore, I think that referring to married priests as unbiblical (many Catholics feel this way) would be false.

In fact, there is much evidence to support that the laws about priests and marriage were changed not because of divided hearts and the inability to run a church properly, but rather because of land issues. In the early ages churches and clergymen were very wealthy. The Catholic church owned a lot of land, and each priest was given a piece of this land. As years passed, the church found that most priests with families 'willed' their land to their families. So upon their death, the church no longer had control over the land. Thus the church's land drastically shrunk. In the 3^rd century, the church re-wrote the laws deeming celibacy a necessity. Without any family, when the priests died, the land would be re-inherited by the church. Therefore the church remained in control of their land and retained any monetary value it incurred.

Anyone can see that back then, land ownership was very important, the church suffered severe losses by losing land to family members of priests. But today, it seems that these laws don't quite make sense anymore (I'm saying this strictly from land and property ownership perspective). So with the priest shortage at an all time high, many think that celibacy laws should be re-examined. As technology has progressed and as the world has changed and advanced, these age old laws just don't hold up. Making a celibate commitment (for what many think are the wrong reasons) to the church seems to be too hard for many men, thus the churches are suffering.

Who's to say what the right course of action is in all of this. We all know that whether the marriage laws are changed or not, we will still find incidences of priests unlawfully committing sexual acts with others. But allowing priests to marry may bring about an upswing in the amount of men joining the seminary to become priests. This is just my opinion, but I believe that modernizing certain aspects of the Catholic religion, or any religion for that matter, in order to get more people involved might not be the worst thing in the world. I believe that it is possible in this day and age to learn the principals of a religion and live our lives as God intended us while still enjoying the benefits of modern day society. The message doesn't have to change, but maybe changing its delivery will spark interest in a generation that seems to be getting lost in the shuffle. So what do you think?