What do you base that incorrect assertion on? It certainly isn't Scripture or history.
So lets say I want to be married and be a priest....I could become an Anglican priest, get married, then decide to join the Catholic Church as a priest and bingo...married priest...
Number one, 21 of the 22 Churches sui juris which comprise the Catholic Church already ordain, as a norm, married men. Number two, the revolving door scenario you describe is indicative of your ignorance of the formation process and the overall topic at hand.
“It would be a mistake to imagine that these permanent concubines, especially in the countryside, would have aroused a lot of scandal,” said Jedin. “We know of many cases where these `keepers of concubines’ possessed the sympathies of their parishioners and were looked upon as good and virtuous pastors.” (ibid page 162)
No finer mind than Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologia II-IIa, 88, 11)had provided stubborn opposition to those who saw celibacy rulings as part of divine law. Thomas contended that the celibacy requirement for Catholic priests was merely Church law that could be reversed by any time by papal or conciliar authority. (MacGregor pages 108-109)
When the Reformation indirectly brought forth the Council of Trent in the mid 1500’s, the Roman Catholic Church reformed itself and remodeled the priesthood to its present form. Not only did the Council reiterate the Church's prohibition of a married clergy but also instituted reforms to try to insure the implementation of the decrees of the Church on this subject.
Since the Council of Trent, celibacy has remained Church law, specifically upheld by Pope Paul VI in his 1967 encyclical Sacerdotalis Caelibatus. Despite opposition from half of the bishops attending the Synod of 1971, requests from bishops in the United States, France, and Latin America in 1988, Pope John Paul II has not budged from his opposition to a married priesthood.