Dear Editor, Commenting on the vocations downturn, a wise priest once told us eager students: “Gentlemen, we have enough priests to minister comfortably to practising Catholics. What we don’t have is enough priests to minister to cultural Catholics.”
Increasingly, I think he was correct.
Much of the present discussion about priest shortages begins with the assumption that we must somehow preserve the existing ecclesiastical machinery, only with fewer men operating it. Yet if current trends continue, we can expect that around 62% of the population will identify as Catholic in the next census, while regular practice remains only a fraction of that. Therein lies the elephant occupying the spare room in the presbytery!
We continue preparing children for First Communion and Confirmation largely because they attend a “Catholic” school, lest anyone suffer the unimaginable trauma of missing the big day. Canonical requirements for baptism are completely overlooked for fear that saying “not yet” risks causing offence. Funerals (now renamed “celebrations of life”) are theatrical performances, with the priest afforded a “supporting role”. And unfamiliar couples expect a Catholic wedding because, well, the church does look nice in the photographs.
The crisis is not simply that we have too few priests. The crisis is that we are asking the few to maintain a sacramental service industry built for the maintenance of cultural Catholicism.
The answer is not revisiting parish structures or asking parishioners to hold the ladder. We need the courage to distinguish between maintenance and mission. The Church must always have her doors open to those seeking Christ. But an open door is not the same thing as a drive-through takeaway.
If we lack the courage to change this model ourselves, the priest shortage will eventually change it for us.
Yours etc,
Fr Mark Quinn
Tuam, Co. Galway
A response to confused assertions on SSPX
Dear Editor, Much ink has been spilt recently on the position of the Society of St Pius X due to its recent consecration of bishops without the Pope’s permission. This is probably not the place to attempt to justify its action: the Society’s claims can be easily accessed, and each can judge for him or herself. I cannot, however, let pass without protest the egregious fabrication of George Weigel in your edition of June 25 (‘The SSPX leadership against scripture and tradition’).
Mr Weigel claims that by stating that “every man must be a member of the Catholic Church in order to save his soul,” and that “there is but one baptism” the SSPX is somehow deviating from the teaching of the Catholic Church into Feeneyism. I’m not sure what version of the Nicene Creed Mr Weigel is familiar with, but the one I use says “I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of the sins”.
The teaching of the Catholic Church is and has always been that the only way to heaven is through Christ because He alone is the Mediator between God and man. To save my soul, I must be united to the Body of Christ which is the Catholic Church. The entry to this body is by one baptism in Christ (as the Creed says) and this baptism can be of water, blood or desire. In other words, the Muslim or Jew whom Weigel accuses us of cast into hell without compunction can in fact save his soul by adhering to Christ through baptism of desire. Feeneyism rejects the perennial doctrine of baptism of blood and baptism of desire and in doing so it deviates from the Catholic Faith; the Society does no such thing.
In the same article, the author makes a confused assertion that we somehow deny the validity of the Old Testament. The Old Testament was valid until the New Testament was written in the Blood of the Saviour. When the veil of the Temple was rent in two, the Old Testament was dissolved. This is the constant teaching of the faith. The most junior law student could explain to Mr Weigel how it would be inherently contradictory for two testaments to be valid at the same time.
Yours etc,
Fr David Sherry
Superior, Society of St Pius X,
District of Great Britain and Ireland
Standing up for babies– the most vulnerable of all
Dear Editor, It seems there is no let up in efforts to increase abortions here. Despite claims that it would be rare, the numbers continue to escalate with over 65,000 to date, but that is not acceptable to many and is facilitated in a media of the same mind set. It was rather alarming to read in The Irish Independent recently the call for the removal of “the criminal sanction for a GP who is deemed to have stepped outside the legal limits”. It is also alarming to see so little reference to the fact that many doctors do not see the woman before issuing the prescription for abortion pills.
It is most disappointing that these situations are never discussed but those pushing for more and more abortions are given massive media coverage. Reference is made to ‘Independent O’Shea review,’ which, in fact, only consisted in publishing the views of those seeking the provision of more and more abortions and the Minister has refused to meet with anyone with concerns about the review.
When will our media provide a proper factual and unbiased report on all matters relating to abortion, and not just those which seek to provide more and more abortions, remembering that the Government offers no assistance but abortion to those with crisis pregnancies. In other words, no standing up for the most vulnerable of all, the unborn baby in the womb. Yes, it is necessary to speak up for the many children being killed world wide, but how can there be an exception for the baby in the womb. I have always spoken against the death penalty and have no intention of making an exception for the unborn baby, and shame on those who do.
Of course The Irish Catholic is an honourable exception and it was so encouraging to read your report on Bishop Router’s recent remarks on abortion and that he urged Catholics not to give up: “we must keep on fighting the good fight and never let go of that belief that we hold dear, the principle that life is sacred from conception till natural death and it is worth fighting for”.
Yours etc,
Mary Stewart
Ardeskin, Co. Donegal
Campaign against the celebration of international safe abortion day
Dear Editor, As you may have heard, a motion has recently been passed by a committee of Belfast City Council calling for Belfast City Hall to be lit up on Monday September 28, to celebrate “safe abortions day” in support of the so-called “safe abortions” campaign. Proposed by Green Party representatives, the motion passed with the support of the SDLP, Sinn Fein and the Alliance party and proceeded through a final vote on September 1.
I’m sure you will agree that this is a truly horrific development and it marks a new low for our society that such a motion has even been conceived and proposed. Not only does this do nothing to serve the people of Belfast but it sets a very dangerous precedent and is a direct assault on the most vulnerable among us, who have no voice but ours.
I ask that you, as the leading Catholic Paper in Ireland, pursue these politicians and print their names and pictures as you did for the TDs who voted against the three day waiting period in the Republic of Ireland. I would urge you to pursue this and report it on your front page. I have written to Bishop Alan McGuckian and Archbishop Eamon Martin asking them to release a public statement and I would ask that you bring light to this very dark situation, expressing your opposition to this celebration of the slaughter of children, affirming the sanctity of all human life from womb to tomb and urging the faithful and all people of good will to raise their own voices against this evil.
As a subscriber I have great faith in your ability to bring this matter to the public’s attention. Please keep me in your prayers and be assured of mine for you and those who work in The Irish Catholic.
Yours etc,
Fiona and Luke Rooney
Glenavy, Co. Antrim
Selection of parish council members should be decided by the people
Dear Editor, ‘New resource aims to help Dublin’s pastoral councils embrace synodal way of working’ (The Irish Catholic, August 27 2026). The staff reporter writes that the change means a move away from a business meeting format to one of prayerful, discernment-based approach rooted in the Church’s synodality journey. Surely, there is need for both depending on the task in hand?
The editorial (The Irish Catholic, May 28 2026) raised an important question, ‘The Irish Synodal Pathway process is a serious undertaking by serious people. But who is it for?’
There is one simple action that would help the many laity who now feel irrelevant and left out in the synodal process. The Parish Pastoral Council members are now selected entirely by the parish priest. A return to the parishioners being encouraged to put their names forward and the selection of the parish council members to be decided by a parish ballot, would be in accordance with synodality and show that synodality is for all.
Yours etc,
Daithi O’Muirneachain
Drumcondra, Dublin 9
