Briefly put: the ancient traditions of married clergy to which Fr. McNamara refers stem only from around 700. They are ancient, yes, and deserve respect, yes--that much of McNamara's article is excellent. But that they represent a slight modification of older traditions, both east and west, he leaves out and thereby seriously skews the picture.
The more ancient, pre-700 tradition, both east and west was either to ordain widowed men of a mature age who had not remarried as most men would have if widowed at age 30 or 35 or 40, showing they had learned to control themselves sexually (see Peter Brown's essay on this in the chapter on sexuality in _A History of Private Live_, vol. 1) or married men who had pledged to abstain from marital relations and proven themselves mature or unmarried celibate men (St. Paul describes himself that way and sees it as preferable for an apostle). Initially bishops led the church, assisted by deacons and "elders" (presbyters) as a council of advisors. Over time sacramental and governing functions were delegated to the presbyters and what we know as "priests" emerged.
At the Synod of Trullo (692), attended by eastern bishops only and not ratified by the bishop of Rome, the discipline was relaxed to permit married priests to continue marital relations with their wives. The main support for this change in discipline (a statement purportedly by Bishop Paphnutius at the Council of Nicea) is now known to have been spurious.
All the relevant documents are carefully evaluated in Cochini, _The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy_, including the evidence that the Paphnutius-Nicea story is spurious.
Well, OK, but all of the Apostles, including St. Peter, other than Paul apparently were married; many of the earlier Popes, at least as late as Pope Adrian in 872, were married and priestly cleibacy did not become required Church discipline until the Second Latern Council in 1139.
"The more ancient, pre-700 tradition, both east and west was either to ordain widowed men of a mature age who had not remarried as most men would have if widowed at age 30 or 35 or 40, showing they had learned to control themselves sexually"
Fair enough. I'd say that a tradition that has been practiced since circa 700 A.D. would certainly qualify as an organic tradition. The eastern Catholic churches are doing just fine with married priests and have been doing so for...oh, about 1300 years?
I have no problem with priests in the western (Roman Catholic) church being required to be celibate, and I do not advocate changing what is clearly the established tradition in the western church. Of course that's a matter for the western church to decide. I hope they won't change it, but that's up to them.
Conversely, I would hope that the much larger western church would refrain from attempting to force it's own organic traditions onto the smaller eastern churches. Unfortunately, history hasn't shown much restraint on the part of the western church in that regard. There's always hope for the future, though.