No. “Fullfilling the sacrament” (i.e., Holy Orders), is in reference to the call to be a leader/confessor/shepherd/comforter/etc. to the people. The idea is that a manwho has to spend time worrying about clothing and feeding his kids or not upsetting his wife is less single-minded in his commitment to caring for his parishioners. There is probably some truth to the idea. On the other hand, such a person may also be less understanding of people who actually have to raise kids or live with one other adult for life. The argument can be made in both directions.
Matrimony is also a sacrament, and is the exact opposite of celibacy (but not chastity).
The Church, overall, does not claim that Holy Orders is superior to Matrimony (although, it is noted, only ordained priests seem to get picked to be pope or run the various congregations that make up the RCC bureaucracy).
Even the idea that Holy Orders requires celibacy is not an absolute. The tradition dates back to the earliest church period, but it has gone in and out of fashion since then. There are Catholic rites (Maronite, Chaldean, Greek, etc.) where the priests are not required to be celibate. The “Roman” in Roman Catholic refers to the specific liturgcal services practiced by that group–which is the 800 pound gorilla of Catholic groups, but which is nominally just the biggest among equals.
Now, there are individuals within the RCC who believe that the celibate priesthood is a higher calling than that of a married person. I had an ordained college professor who firmly believed that. On the other hand, after mocking the idea, several of us mentioned it to one of his fellow faculty members, also a priest, who laughed at the suggestion (and at the original prof).