From what I can gather, the rule imposing celibacy upon priests is not a tenet of Catholicism; it’s an administrative policy adopted by the Church. For Catholic priests, there’s obviously a theological dimension to celibacy that links the practice to venerable traditions of asceticism, but primarily it’s a matter of discipline and practicality in view of the demands the priesthood places on individuals and their personal lives. By way of analogy, consider the various restrictions on marriage that historically have been associated with military service in certain contexts.
Like any administrative policy, its scope of application is not absolute (for example, for various historical reasons, it applies strictly only to the Western Latin Rite and not other rites of the Catholic Church) and departures from the rule are made in the interests of expediency (for example, where an already-married Anglican priest converts).
Since administrative policies are first and foremost adopted for pragmatic reasons, the fact that exceptions are “a matter of convenience depending on the circumstances” is self-evident. That’s not hypocritical, it’s perfectly logical. Given that clerical celibacy is in no way an article of faith, I don’t see why its application or non-application should give rise to Darat’s inference regarding the Church’s “remarkable ability to hold two beliefs simultaneously that contradict each other.”
