talking like someone "done you wrong" just because you had a change of heart is harder for me to sympathize with.
Well, but here is the thing, Albion.
Catholics believe that there is only one Church, and that the only REAL Church, made by Jesus, is the Catholic Church. Obviously this is a sore point of contention with everybody who isn't a Catholic, but I don't mean to contend that here, just to state a fact that
within Catholicism, the Catholic belief that the Catholic Church is the one and only True Church of God is a very important belief, and a pillar of faith for many.
It means that, no matter how angry Catholics become with a particular priest, or bishop, or Pope, the notion of leaving the sacraments, of leaving the Church to go to some "other form" of Christianity is, to the devout Catholic mind, not different than going to be a Muslim, or a Hindu. It is walking out on God and going and doing something that the Catholic knows is not right and is not true.
This Church-centered belief of Catholics means that Catholics do not have the option of leaving the Catholic Church.
To anybody standing outside of the Church, this is just ludicrous, but to Catholics who are devout enough to want to become priests, it's a real, and utter, barrier. Believing Catholics do not have the option of leaving the Catholic Church for another church - that is apostasy, pur et dur.
I've spent some time on that, because it is an aspect that must be clearly understood and accepted as a truth of the Catholic mind, or the rest won't make sense. "No salvation outside of the Church" is still Catholic doctrine. Now, the catechism today explains that that doesn't mean what it sounds like, and holds forth the hope of heaven for those who were born and raised outside of the Church, who never knew or understood the teachings. But for a Catholic to simply walk out of God's One and Only True Church is apostasy. It is walking away from the Sacraments (which are mandatory). The Catholic who leaves the Catholic Church knows, from Catholic teaching, that he is turning his back on the Truth, on God, on Jesus, on the Saints, and quite possibly on a positive outcome in the afterlife.
Lots of Catholics do it, of course, but consider the particular case of Catholics who are devout enough to be drawn to the Catholic priesthood. THAT is a level of devotion and belief that exceeds the lay norm. Men drawn to the priesthood really believe it. They really believe their religion enough to want to minister to it. Many of them feel drawn by God to it. And consider Peter - he WAS drawn by God to it, called by Jesus himself. And he was a married man.
Now, it was Jesus who said that some become eunuchs for the Kingdom, and said let him hear who can. That is well and good, but he still made the married Peter the first Pope. (Again, I say these things unhedged and unapologetically, as a Catholic thinks and believes, with no accomodation at all made to the fact that Protestants and nobody BUT Catholics believe this - we are talking about men who are drawn to the Catholic priesthood - THEY believe these things even more firmly than the Catholic laity, or at least they OUGHT to, because these are Catholic doctrines.)
Now then, the Church itself does not claim that priestly celibacy is a divine commandment. And the Church will point out that among the 22 or 23 Catholic Churches, the Latin Rite is the only one that imposes priestly celibacy as a requirement. But there is more to it than that. Yes, there are 23-odd rites in the Catholic Church, one Latin, 22 Eastern. There is also the Anglican-Use thingie. But the Latin Rite is a full 90% of all of the Church. The Eastern Rites are all associated with local ancient Eastern European or Middle Eastern patriarchates or national churches. The entire New World, all of Sub-Saharan Africa, and all of the Far East, everywhere BUT Eastern Europe and the Middle East (broadly considered) is all under the Latin Rite. Further, the canon law requires that Catholics be baptized into the Latin Rite UNLESS the postulant has a tie with the historical Eastern Rite into which he wants to be baptized. Latin Rite people cannot be rebaptized into the Eastern Rites. So, a Western man has been baptized into the Latin Rite unless his parents happen to be, say Copts, and it is in the Latin Rite that he must stay, for the purposes of ordination to the priesthood. A Latin Rite man cannot, in order to be able to marry, simply move over to an Eastern Rite. Baptized into the Latin Rite, he may only become a member of the Latin Rite clergy - and that requires celibacy.
A Latin Rite man determined to be a married priest could go get himself made an Episcopalian or Anglican minister, and then seek to become a Catholic priest under the Anglican Use thingie that the Church promulgated under Benedict. The problem with this, from the perspective of a devout Catholic mind you, is that such gamesmanship is essentially a lie, a subterfuge by which a man's own personal desire to become a married Catholic priest permits him to lie to the Anglicans that he intends to be their priests, becomes apostate from the Catholic church specifically to go get a priesthood that he himself thinks is counterfeit while he does it, with the intention of abandoning the Anglicans and come back to Catholicism and be a married priest. The sort of conniving, calculated cunning, and the lies to two Churches and two publics required to cold-bloodedly do such a thing are the very antithesis of what a man should be thinking who is seeking the priesthood.
Effectively there is no direct, honest, straightforward way by which a married man, or a man wishing to marry, can become a priest in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church (which is 90% of the Church and practically the entire Church of the West). It is only through subterfuge - which is to say lying - that a man could pull it off. It is different when an Anglican Protestant decides that the Catholics are right and comes over. That is an honest conversion. For a Catholic man to premeditatedly go through all of the deceit necessary to become a Catholic priest by duping another religion and then his own is a decidedly less wholesome thing than an honest conversion FROM another religion.
Now then, the devout Latin Catholic man who finds himself called - he believes by God - to the priesthood, but who is also called to marriage, or who is already married - simply has no way to do it. He must choose one or the other. He can legitimately look - with some resentment - on the fact that Peter was married and that Jesus didn't impose celibacy as a requirement for priestly discipleship. But - being Catholic - he will also remember that God endowed Peter and the Apostles, and their heirs through the Apostolic Succession - with the power to loose and to bind, which means (to Catholic), the right to impose rules such as priestly celibacy. He may disagree with the rule, but if he's Catholic enough to want to become a priest for the right reasons, he cannot disagree with the concept of Apostolic Succession and legislative power of the Church to fix such rules. If he did disagree, he'd be a Protestant, not a Catholic.
So, in a sense, the devout Catholic who would be a priest of his own accord, and who perhaps SHOULD be a priest as the world measures such things, is trapped. He CANNOT be a priest if he is married, or if he will not renounce sexuality forever in order to attain it.
He might well ask why it should be that if God chooses a man for the priesthood, the Church should be able to impose an insurmountable rule to prevent it. He is unlikely to accept any answer from the Church (or your answer: "He knew the rules" - he would answer: "But that rule is optional! Why should the Church have made such a rule? It's a bad rule!"). But though he might personally think the reason is bad, if he wants to be a CATHOLIC priest he probably has enough Catholic belief to then recognize his own resistance to the rule as sinful, as it is the Church who is empowered by God to set such rules, so his resistance to the rule is long on ego, but short on rectitude.
Thus the conundrum.