I'm Episcopalian. Our church ordains women as bishops, priests, and deacons. Female priests in our church do everything that male priests are allowed to do.
For us, the essential part of the Incarnation was God becoming human, not God becoming male. Because each human being has specific, individual features -- a particular gender, a particular hair color, a particular height and favorite food and nationality and so on -- Jesus did too. Having a specific set of features like this is part of being human. But there's no one single hair color or height or gender that's more human than the alternatives. And there's no one single hair color or height or gender that makes people more like God than the alternatives.
So, insofar as the priest may be seen to represent Jesus, in our church there's no problem with women being in this role. God became human in Jesus, and women are human.
The Catholic tradition sees human gender differently than Episcopalians do, and the Catholic tradition, by design, is resistant to reform. (This is both good and bad. It means it's hard to change when something needs changing, but it also means that the Catholic Church isn't going to veer off into cuckooland any time soon, as Protestants occasionally do.) Catholic theologians are just going to have to sort this one out for themselves over the next few centuries.
I agree with Paidiske that women could preach without being ordained. (Can lay women do that already, in Catholic churches? I had the impression that that was already permitted.) I don't think I'd call a person a "priest" if they weren't permitted to celebrate the Eucharist; a title like "lay minister" or "preacher" seems better.
I do feel for your frustration, Love365. I gather that you love your Church and also disagree with them on gender policies. I don't know what I'd do in your situation. Work from within for change, perhaps, but that's not an easy path.
