David Quinn has a very good column in today's IRISH INDEPENDENT spelling out why Bishop Daly is mistaken. The last paragraph, I think, highlights what is REALLY at stake:
www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-lack-of-vocations-down-to-crisis-of-faith-not-celibacy-2878937.htmlEXTRACT
Certainly the call for married priests chimes very well with the times we live in because we think sex is so central to life that we end up regarding celibacy as being somehow unnatural, a terrible imposition.
In places like India, on the other hand, religious celibacy is seen as a great sacrifice to make for the sake of devoting yourself to following God above all things. That is why religious celibacy is still greatly respected there, as well as in Buddhist countries like Thailand.
As mentioned, Bishop Daly wonders why celibacy should be the "great and unyielding arbiter" as distinct from other factors like prayerfulness. But it's not an 'either/or', and prayerfulness is obviously much more important than celibacy. But you can have both.
In fact, the rule of celibacy isn't ultimately about denying sex at all. It's more about giving up having a family of your own and therefore putting yourself 100pc at the service of the Gospel and the Christian community.
Any cleric with a family has to divide their time between their family and their congregation. That is both obvious and unavoidable.
What about the scandals though? Surely celibacy is one of the major reasons why priests abused children?
Well, if that's so then surely celibate lay people, who often don't want to be celibate, are as big a threat to children. But does anyone really believe that? In any case, there isn't a scintilla of evidence that celibate people are more likely to abuse children than non-celibates.
Bishop Daly is of course correct to say that good priests resigned from ministry to get married. But married clergy of other churches also leave ministry and in substantial numbers.
For example, married clergy often quit ministry because their families, especially their children, hate having to live as paragons of virtue in the eyes of the local congregation.
Also, married clergy sometimes get divorced. What would happen then? Would we then hear a demand to allow divorced priests to carry on as before and not leave the priesthood at all?
Would some future bishop lament the fact that so many good priests were lost to the Catholic Church because the church doesn't believe in divorce? You can bet your house on it.
What about vocations? It is probably true that if the Catholic Church allowed priests to marry it would attract a few more men to the priesthood. However, it wouldn't have that big an effect because the Protestant churches have also suffered a big drop in vocations compared with a few decades ago.
Of course, the Catholic Church could change the rule of celibacy tomorrow and allow priests to marry. However, anyone who thinks this would be a huge shot in the arm for the Catholic Church simply hasn't examined the issue properly and is being wildly optimistic.
The biggest reason for the vocations crisis, one that has affected all the churches in this country whether they have married clergy or not, is the crisis of faith caused by secularisation.
Far fewer Irish people view life through a religious prism than was once the case and that is obviously going to have a huge effect on vocations.
Address the crisis of faith and you automatically address the vocations crisis. The debate about married priests is a sideshow and a distraction compared with that. Indeed, it is a symptom of it.
END OF EXTRACT
This of course raises the question - why are Irish church authorities/members so reluctant to preach the faith - in the way evangelicals or atheists do, and someone like Frank Duff did a few decades back? Why are they so reluctant to say that Catholicism has something that others don't have:
The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple
The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the LORD are radiant, giving light to the eyes.
The fear of the LORD is pure, enduring forever. The ordinances of the LORD are sure and altogether righteous.
They are more precious than gold, than much pure gold; they are sweeter than honey, than honey from the comb.
By them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward. (Psalm 19:7-11)
I suspect part of the reason is embarrassment at past "excesses" (some really were crimes, some were correct) and part is fear of "divisiveness" because to preach the Faith uncompromisingly would complicate relations with other churches/denominations and would involve facing up to the fact that large sections of the Irish Catholic population (including friends and relatives of those doing the preaching) are no longer Catholic.
Given that the atheists and aggressive secularists are under no such inhibitions in preaching their message, however, something will have to be done sooner or later. (I might add that many of the proposals for church "reform" we hear in certain Irish quarters seem intended to make it impossible for that somethign ever to be done by stifling the church in bureaucracy and separating its administration from the work of preaching and the sacraments).