It's when will the Church recognize that women are being ordained.

See, for example, Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica Supplement, question 39 article 1, which considers the question, "Whether the female sex is an impediment to receiving Orders?". He says that it is, for two reasons. The first is that women are inferior to men ("since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Orders&quot . The Vatican has officially repudiated this argument.

The second reason is: "Further, the crown is required previous to receiving Orders, albeit not for the validity of the sacrament. But the crown or tonsure is not befitting to women according to 1 Cor. 11. Neither therefore is the receiving of Orders." Now, he admits that "the crown" -- by which he means the tonsure (a ritual shaving of the head) -- is not required for the validity of the sacrament. Indeed, the tonsure is not performed nowadays. Thus, this reason, which was shaky in Aquinas' day, no longer is a real objection.

Nowadays, the opponents of the ordination of women speak of the "complementarity" of men and women, saying that there are "ontological differences" between the sexes. Exactly what these ontological differences are and how they preclude women from being ordained is more than a bit vague. I believe that this is nothing more than the discredited inferiority argument, tarted up with philosophical gobbledygook with a new coat of paint over the dry rot.