No. It's objectively worse. Killing a bunch of chefs who are doing nothing towards the main plan and only MIGHT have something to do is not worse than killing a dude who is ACTIVELY participating as one of your assassins. One is a bunch of chefs, the other is one of your assassins for your critical plan that requires you to surprise your targets.What Katakuri did was worse in your opinion.
In context of this situation, it's not for reasons I outlined above. Those chefs are irrelevant compared to one of their actual assassins. This goes double when you realize that killing the chefs came AFTER chaos broke out, and didn't add to the chaos, while Katakuri killing the priest caused more chaos by giving Sanji an open window to just jump off with Pudding.But IMO Big Mom killing multiple nakama on purpose is worse than Katakuri aiming for Sanji, but killing one nakama by accident.
I'm not saying he couldn't, but the priest did have more importance, considering the chefs didn't even have guns.The priest seemed to be equally fodder.. the only thing he had going for him was being close to Sanji. But if Sanji could dodge the bullet from Pudding (who was of equal distance as the priest) then why wouldn't he be able to dodge a bullet from the priest?