I would suggest that any who are interested read this article: canonlawblog.wordpress.com
It is from Dr. Ed Peters' Canon Law Blog In the Light of the Law.
I would also like to quote Dr. Peters' additum: "Permit me to express some impatience with the continuing recirculation of a bad theory.
"Every time I turn around, someone is citing Fr. Lombardi’s comment that the pope’s washing of women’s feet on Holy Thursday is 'absolutely licit' because it’s not a sacrament. Now, whatever one might finally conclude about the liceity of the pope’s action, it simply CANNOT be defended on the grounds that Lombardi uses.
"Consider: the homily is not a sacrament (obviously); the homily is optional at weekday Masses (c. 767 § 3); the homily is reserved to clerics (c. 767 § 1). Okay? So, if a priest decides, as a gesture of charity and to model Christ’s inclusivity, to allow a woman (well, any lay person) to preach the homily at a weekday Mass, is his action suddenly licit?
"And don’t tell us this does not really happen.
"We could multiply this example many times over, of course."
and his concluding paragraph:
"Law in the Church—canon, liturgical, sacramental, etc.—is not an end in itself, but instead serves greater ends. Yet, precisely as law, it cannot serve these purposes if it is ignored and/or explained away, two fates often suffered by law in antinomian times."
I recommend all posters in this thread take a look at the article and read it carefully. It is in line with common sense.