But this whole argument is about "ordinary perception." Just because people might have a distorted "ordinary perception" of something doesn't mean it is, in itself, wrong.
If more have the "distorted" ordinary perception, then there is something in the actions giving that perception. And with the exclusive realms, this perception is two-fold because often worldly affairs are considered not only mundane but possibly even dirty, especially dealing with money, so there is the possibility in isolating priests from money matters there is an added element of them being too sacred to handle such a tainted matter.
But why are you assuming that communion is the default, and everything else is deficient?
It's not so much that it's the default, but look at your own language. Services are divided into Eucharistic and non-Eucharistic. As I've leveled several times, it's the same logic as "separate but equal" to claim they are equal because in such divisions there is an inherent inequality.
"Authority" probably needs some unpacking there, but I would argue that ordination does not convey that.
I'd imagine you would, but ordination is about vesting the authority of the church in an individual which creates an imbalance in any priest-laity relationship.
I am not sure that you have correctly characterised the Catholic understanding, but setting that aside, it is certainly not exactly the Anglican understanding. In pronouncing absolution, we are not doing something cannot be achieved apart from the Church, but we are articulating what we understand is available to every believer from God. It's simply that for some people, and often when dealing with a particularly grievous burden of guilt, it can be helpful to have someone listen to that, know the weight of it, and still be able to assure the penitent that they are forgiven.
So no one must seek confession in that form, but if it is pastorally helpful to do so, it is available.
I'm basing my assessment on their catechism on penance. I agree that confession of sins is an important aspect of the Christian life, but what difference does a priest assuring the penitent they are forgiven have from an individual who is learned in the Scriptures but not ordained making the same pronouncement? If the priest is not mediating the absolution and merely pronouncing an established sentence, why is such confession reserved to them?
Well, I probably can't trust my friend to keep it confidential, for a start.
Seriously, though, the main difference is that the priest is the person who is entrusted to be available to the faithful for this reason; adequately trained and equipped to offer wise counsel; and authorised by the church to offer an assurance of forgiveness which can be heard as having the weight of the church behind it. (Ie. It's not just the priest's personal opinion that you are forgiven, but the agreed understanding of the church that
God forgives you).
I assume you're making a joke with the first line, but I have several accountability partners I make regular confession to, and none of them have divulged any of the salacious things I've confessed to them.
Now, what is this assurance of forgiveness based on? If it is apart from the church's active role in the forgiveness of sins, why can't anyone learned in church doctrine make the same statement with equal weight? Would basing the pronouncement on the authority of Scripture not be just as devoid of being mere personal opinion?
I think a lot of these things came about as a matter of scale. The church grew exponentially after Pentecost. What did they do? They elected deacons to help. And so it began. The church continued to grow and so did the leadership needs. The larger the church, the more division between leadership and laity. And the more absolute the power, the more temptation to abuse it. But we can't make the case that the division causes the abuse of power. The checks and balances are there to prevent it.
We should get back on topic.
Partly, but the biggest influences on church leadership were Constantine's declaration of Christianity as the official religion of the empire granting the church prestige and a controversy with the Donatists over whether the church should re-admit recanters during a martyrdom episode being addressed by vesting baptismal and Eucharistic rites with those the bishop ordained instead of belonging to the believers at large.
As for whether we're on topic, I'd say the question of whether there should be priests at all is just as relevant to whether there should be women who can serve in such leadership positions when the question is whether there should be women priests.