Speaking of that article about of male Catholic clergy (literally!) Lording it over their female counterparts, I still really balk at the Church's fundamental justification for a) objecting to the positions (some) nuns are taking and b) for allowing only male clergy to "rewriting the group's statutes, reviewing all its plans and programs — including approving speakers — and ensuring the organization properly follows Catholic prayer and ritual."  From the same Seattle Times article...

"Some commentaries on 'patriarchy' distort the way in which Jesus has structured sacramental life in the church," the authors of the report wrote.

This almost certainly refers to Pope John Paul II's 1994 invocation of "infallability" that since Jesus selected only male apostles he must have explicitly intended that only men could be priests.  This has never particularly held water for me.  For instance, the later ministry of Paul to the Gentiles notwithstanding, while Jesus had many admirers from all over, not only did he select only men as apostles, he also selected only practicing Jews as apostles.  And while Jesus had many admirers he selected only Jewish men from the vicinity of Galilee.  (Ok, except for Judas, who was from Kerioth of Judah in Hebron, but how did he work out!?!?!)

And yet John Paul never balked at the ordination of non-Jewish priests or of priests who had never even seen the Sea of Gallilee, let alone grown up around it.

This is not, incidentally, a minor issue.  Because while at several points in the Gospels Jesus expresses toleration for gentiles he couldn't be more clear about the intensity or the scope of his focus on the Jews of Israel.

Thus while there really isn't any reason to belief that Jesus was disinterested in the salvation of gentiles his express selection of only Israeli Jewish apostles is at least as unambiguous as his selection of only male apostles.

Jesus certainly never appointed a Polish gentile any more than he appointed an Israelite Jewish woman, yet John Paul II never questioned his own claim to the priesthood, let alone the infallibility of his pronunciation against women.

Despite having carefully read the Church's arguments I happen to believe John Paul II was entirely suitable to have been ordained as a priest, same as all other non-Jewish, non-Gallilee-native priests.  However, having read the same arguments I believe the only reasons women of faith continue to be excluded from the priesthood are based not on Jesus's choices but instead on hubris, over-reliance on tradition, and a peculiar argument against the possibility that Jesus could accidentally have made a mistake that has perpetuated for 60 generations... and a giant, walloping dose of self-serving, pulling-up-the-ladder patriarchal distortion.