Also, Paul, being a bishop who ordained other men to be bishops (cf. 1 Tim. 1:6), would have been a hypocrite if he enjoined such a rule (”to be a bishop you must be married”) and then, by his own admission (1 Cor. 7:8-9) ignored his own rule.1 Tim. 1:6 certainly is a bad reference, it has nothing to do with ordaining other men to be bishops ("From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling").
Paul calls himself an Apostle of Jesus Christ, not a Bishop of the Church.
And whether or not you accept the interpretation that "Husband of one wife" really meant "Husband of no more than one wife", it is clear that Paul was saying leaders could be married. He certainly knew how to say "Celibate".
But why would Paul have prohibited a widower who remarried from being a leader in the Church? I can understand rejecting those who have been divorced (although it seems odd that the same Church which claims this passage means "no divorcee can be a Priest") also started with the practice of enforcing a "practical divorce" for men in order to be priests, if they had been married previously.
And whether or not you accept the interpretation that "Husband of one wife" really meant "Husband of no more than one wife", it is clear that Paul was saying leaders could be married. He certainly knew how to say "Celibate".
Of course Church leaders could be married at some point in their lives. St. Peter was married, and we claim him as leader of the Church.
Practically speaking the only men who were not married in the 1st century AD were teenagers, slaves, and eunuchs. The Church wanted mature adults with sound wisdom as its leaders, so St. Paul stated that the rule was to be a husband who had managed his household affairs well prior to ordination, but no men who had been married to more than one wife.
But why would Paul have prohibited a widower who remarried from being a leader in the Church?
Because such a person has shown that he is under the control of his sensual urges. Reading 1 Corinthians 7 should clear up St. Paul's thinking about remarriage and the reasons for doing it.
I can understand rejecting those who have been divorced (although it seems odd that the same Church which claims this passage means "no divorcee can be a Priest") also started with the practice of enforcing a "practical divorce" for men in order to be priests, if they had been married previously.
Those who have been divorced are not rejected, especially if they were not Catholic before their divorce. It is only those who marry more than once who are rejected as unsuitable.
The practical divorce is still available to husbands and wives today. If they mutually agree, they can both take vows of celibacy and live apart in a monastery and convent. The man could even be ordained.
The reference mentioned is actually a reference to 1 Tim. 3:1-6 (fairly obvious given the context), which is the entire passage being discussed.
Also, since Paul was authoritatively teaching the rules for ordination of bishops, it is a stretch to posit that he did so at this historical point in the Church without himself having the authority to ordain a bishop. Of course today a woman who is a canon lawyer can quote scripture or canon law authoritatively without having the power to ordain, but in the context of that community and this message, Paul was speaking about an authority that he exercised.
Paul was not interested in the issue beyond the need to provide workers in the vineyard and to give good example to the faithful.