[NYer]

The fundamental fallacy of this argument is the assumption that one's sex is of no more ontological importance than the color of one's hair. I would like to hear Professor Wills explain why he thinks sex is a unimportant aspect of ontological identity, rather than merrily brushing the issue aside.

Consider, too:

Theologically, the priesthood must remain male. Consider the words of consecration: 'This is my body'. Now, the priest speaks sacramentally 'in the person of Christ' (in persona Christi). It is Jesus who consecrates the host through the priest who is an instrument only. Thus, since it is Jesus who says, 'This is my body', the priest through whom Christ speaks must also be male otherwise the very meaning of the mass is distorted and perverted. Moreover, the bible talks about human beings made in the 'image and likeness of God' (Cf. Genesis 1:26), and Jesus is said to be the perfect image of the Father (Cf. John 14:9). If the first person of the Trinity is truly a Father, then He must possess the masculine persona as well. So if Jesus is the perfect image of the Father, it follows that He too must be male, and those He chooses to 'channel' His words of consecration must likewise be male.

american colleen I just can't avoid this topic. ;-)

[american colleen]

I think I may add this book to my reading list: "Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism" by Donna Steichen