St. Peter's Sins vs. St. Paul's: Anti-Catholic Double Standard?
Jesus distinguished three types of eunuchs: 1) those born that way ("from birth"), 2) those who have been castrated ("made eunuchs by men"), and 3) those who voluntarily choose it: "who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 19:12, RSV).
The latter is an example of the same sort of voluntary singleness that St. Paul talks about (what we Catholics call the "evangelical counsels"): leading a "life which the Lord has assigned [us], and in which God has called [us]" (1 Cor 7:17), which leads (in these cases) to being "anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord" (1 Cor 7:32) and which will "secure" an "undivided devotion to the Lord" (1 Cor 7:35), since "he who refrains from marriage will do better" (1 Cor 7:38).
St. Paul himself did this. He wrote about his "right to be accompanied by a wife" (1 Cor 9:5). Then he wrote about how Christian workers also have a right to remuneration, but says that he has "made no use of any of these rights" (1 Cor 9:15) -- that is, a voluntary renunciation -- , that he was "entrusted with a commission" (1 Cor 9:17; cf. 7:17 above), and that he has "made" himself "a slave to all, that I might win the more" (1 Cor 9:19).
Thus, both Jesus and Paul taught that marriage was great and God-ordained (which is why we regard it as a sacrament, as is ordination), and necessary for the promulgation of the human race, but that voluntary singleness for the sake of serving God in some exceptional cases, without the responsibilities of marriage and family life, is "better."
All of this is perfectly consistent with the Catholic notion that a priest (or a nun) voluntarily gives up marriage for the sake of the kingdom. God calls some to this state (as Paul makes very clear). I've always marveled at anyone who denies what I think is the self-evident nature of these arguments.