This article, Rebel Catholics plan St. Lawrence River ordination – – MSNBC.com, is newsworthy only as a glaring example of public insanity. The attempt by the excommunicated "bishops", a.k.a. "The Danube Seven", to ordain women as priests (another article at Yahoo! News falsely writes that they were to "become the first female Roman Catholic priests and deacons") is an exercise in delusion.
The closest analogy I could think of would be if Michael Dukakis was trying to order the military not to engage the Iraqis in the First Gulf War and then wanted to move the nation’s capital to Boston. He was not president (he had lost the election), yet if he tried to act like he was the legitimate president, this would only be news to the insane asylums trying to determine at which one he should be detained.
Just because someone says they are a priest, bishop, dog, Martian, poached egg, etc., doesn’t necessarily make them one. A Roman Catholic priest is a man, ordained by a Roman Catholic bishop (who is in direct line of the Apostolic succession), called to perform the duties of the episcopate. The bishops, priests, and deacons of the Catholic Church take their lead from Jesus Christ, who ordained 12 of his disciples to be Apostles (bishops), in the type of the 12 tribes of Israel (who were all named after 12 male descendants of Jacob/Israel).
The argument that Christ didn’t ordain women because that wasn’t the tradition/culture of the time flies in the face of logic, when confronted with the personality of Christ. What did Christ ever do that was "socially/culturally acceptable" or "traditional"? Since Jesus knew that he was going to die for his teachings, why would he hold back on making one of the female disciples an Apostle out of fear of offending the dominant culture? Truly, if Jesus wanted a woman to be an Apostle, isn’t it likely he would have chosen Martha, Mary Magdalene, or (most likely of all) his own mother? The Church reveres the Blessed Virgin Mary above all Saints; more songs, prayers, poems, pictures, statues, books, parishes, websites, etc. are about or dedicated to this woman than any other woman in history. Even the Bible reinforces this in Luke, Chapter 1: "Blessed art thou among women," and "For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed."
Jesus had no fear of offending cultural sensibilities. He also had no disdain for women. He very much honored his mother (and continues to do so to this day). Clearly he had other reasons for not ordaining women to the office tasked with consecrating bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, not even the one who bore the Body and Blood of Jesus in her womb. This very aspect of womanhood (procreation) is quite possibly the reason for male-only ordination. Perhaps a better way to view it is not as a way of keeping women down, but rather a way to elevate non-creative man to the level of procreative woman. After all, the women hung on every word of Christ. They didn’t question, but rather accepted (without fully understanding) and believed what Jesus said, even in the face of the death of Lazarus – "unless you become as children…". The men, however, needed everything explained to them – every parable that Jesus spoke in public was later explained to the Apostles in private, because they couldn’t seem to accept what was said because they couldn’t understand, and Jesus rebuked them constantly for this.
Even now we see this: women know and feel that a child is growing within them, and they accept it – they do not feel the need to know about every cell and every change going on. Men, however, have taken their own lack of understanding to the brutal extreme of aborting and dissecting fetuses and embryos, even down to the sub-cellular level, in an attempt to understand life and do it themselves.
Christ gave select men the power to do supernaturally what women have been doing naturally since Eve – turn bread and wine into flesh and blood. The consecrated life for men involves a surrender of the desire to know and understand everything, and replace it with an emphasis on building up faith and trust in God and how He acts within us and in our world. The consecrated life for women is just the opposite – they take the vow of celibacy, a surrender of the procreative aspect of their nature, in order to come to know Christ better. Both end up with more than they ever surrendered, but the person must act first. They must surrender something essential to their being to create the void in themselves that only Christ can fill.
This is why the "female priests" don’t fully understand the Catholic priesthood. They look at it as a way to power and control, in which (according to the article), "Some of the women are divorced, others married. Celebacy or sexual orientation is not considered." There is no surrender or sacrifice involved here, if all these things are permitted. Free will does not condone absolute liberty to do evil (for more on this, read Veritatis Splendor). Jesus’ own words confirm this: "let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant." (Luke 22:26) How can one be a servant if they get to do things their own way?