I am not trying to bash RCs, but it seems unreasonable that some of the age-old differences that separate the Roman church with the Eastern Rite churches and those of high Episcopal tradition (w/the obvious exception of the gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson of N.H.) can be bridged--namely allowance of married priests (with celibacy consigned to the monastic orders).
On the issue of women clergy; well, it is hard to justify the fact that in convents the Rev. Mother Superior has similiar duites as a parish priest in that she can hear confession (sacriment), administer the Eucharist (that has been santified by a priest), etc. Admittedly, she can not preform marriages; however emergency baptism and other sacriments are allowed...so, the question is why is Rome so recalcitrant on this touchy issue? (Also, consider the fact that the first person that Christ revealed Himself to when He arose from the dead was a woman; and, also, isn't the Blessed Virgin also a woman?
Mother Superior can do no sacraments that I cannot do. She cannot offer absolution (contrary to your claim that she can hear confession). She cannot transubstantiate the Eucharist (I can serve as an extraordinary Euchartistic Minister). She can baptize if there is no other means to rescue a soul before death, but so can I. She cannot offer homilies.
Re a "mother superior" hearing confession:
Canon 965 A priest alone is the minister of the sacrament of penance.
Canon 630 §3. In monasteries of nuns, in houses of formation, and in more numerous lay communities, there are to be ordinary confessors approved by the local ordinary [i.e. priests appointed by the bishop] after consultation with the community; nevertheless, there is no obligation to approach them.
Ordinarily, a priest must be granted "faculty" to hear confessions, usually in a particular diocese. He is then a confessor. Canon 986 provides that in "urgent necessity" any confessor may hear a confession anywhere (regardless of his particular faculty) and in "imminent danger of death" any priest may hear confession. But even in imminent danger of death, you must confess to a priest. Otherwise, you make a Perfect Act of Contrition and hope for the best.
Re distribution of the Eucharist: As provided by Canon 230, lay persons may distribute communion. But only a priest may celebrate the Mass.
Canon 861: ANYBODY ("any person") may administer baptism in an emergency - so long as water and the Trinitarian formula are used, and the person has the "right intention". He doesn't even have to be a Christian, technically.
So you're zero for three there. I would suggest a review of the Code of Canon Law . . . the Church has been kind enough to set down the rules in black and white so everyone can read them.
With respect to your larger question . . . women can't be priests for the same reason men can't give birth. Especially in the celebration of the Eucharist, the priest stands as "alter Christus" - another Christ, the Bridegroom of the Church. A bridegroom has to be a man. Note that Christ did not make his own Mother an Apostle. And none of this debars women from participating in the life of the church (as a Mother Superior, even, as you note) in roles appropriate to women.
Oh, wait, the bibles are going to be revised to provide that bishops be the husband of only one husband or something like that. Then we will be reminded that the new, new, really, totally, absolutely revised good, better, best news "Bible" rules, right?
Have you got some proof that Mother Superior is empowered to hear sacramental confessions????? In nearly 60 years of being Catholic, that is the very first time I ever heard of such a theory. Those who have not received Holy Orders (as she has not) have not been delegated the power of the keys. What she binds on earth is igored in heaven. What she looses on earth is ignored in heaven. Except, of course, to the extent that such a purported exercise of mock sacramental authority may, in and of itself, be a sin for Mother Superior or the obviously knowledgeable victim of her scam.
The ministers of the sacrament of marriage are the husband and wife. The priest only witnesses on behalf of the Church. The Eucharist is confected by the priest and only by the priest and not "sanctified." Lay women are allowed to administer the Eucharist in the sense of serving the Eucharist to the Catholic in good standing. (Not necessarily a good idea but then Rome decides). Non-Catholics of whatever gender can perform Baptisms under appropriate circumstances. A nun is in a poor position to marry since she is a vowed celibate religious. Only bishops (and therefore no women) may confer the sacrament of Holy Orders. As I understand it, women do not confer Extreme Unction but I may be wrong. Whatever Rome says is certainly OK with me. Only those who are clergy and therefore male may confer confirmation. Penance, likewise.
Not that it matters but I suspect that the Roman soldiers stationed at the tomb were men. To whom Christ revealed Himself first after the esurrection (or during it) has nothing to do with the question.
The question: Who rules as to whether the priesthood is limited to men?
The answer: The pope. Roma Locuta. Causa Finita. The pope (JP II) has spoken and ruled that women are not to be ordained and further ruled that his ruling was permanent and would survive his papacy. End of argument. The cafeteria is closed.