He says that the sources for catholic arguments are all Catholic- so it’s a circular argument. The male priesthood was only as a result of cultural norms of the time, not because that’s the way Jesus would have had it. All three of those source quote the same reasons, so any one of them would suffice.
The fact that Jesus did not choose women to be apostles (assuming he actually didn’t - most of the relevant quotes come from “Acts” which were written after the fact by what historians would call the “victors” and should therefore be subject to historiographic analysis) despite the fact that he broke social norms for women in other areas is unconvincing. I might point out that Jesus broke social norms for gentiles, but all of his apostles were jews. Should we eliminate any non-semitic priests and bishops? The fact that Jesus (or God) didn’t “foresee” future changes and choose women as an example for us presupposes omniscience, but then that omniscience is used as an argument for why he would not have been at least partially susceptible to the social norms of the day. in that vein, I could argue that there were good and benificent slave owners in America who broke the mold of social norms but did not free their slaves is evidence that they would have supported slavery today. Personally, if i retained my original christian faith I would be offended by the idea of godhead-like omniscience for Jesus. The whole principle of the religion is that God took on human form and suffered like us in order to redeem us. That doesn’t just mean physical pain on the cross. It means the whole gamut of human experience, including psychological pain. The only direct quotes of Jesus (assuming things like the Sermon on the Mount to be an account of the sermon, which would not have been written down and therefore would have been paraphrased by the Gospel writers) are the lamentations on the cross, which clearly speak of psychological torment. While Jesus may have had faith, it was clearly tested at that moment (as it was with the devil in the desert before his ministry began). Faith cannot be tested in an omniscient.
I don’t deny your beliefs, but you can’t sell beliefs with logic unless you and the buyer can agree on the underlying assumptions. I. frankly, cannot accept the blind belief in the supernatural when I see the natural as a sufficient explanation of the world. You can push the idea back to “How did the big bang get started” but that allows for the possible equal status for belief in any version of a creator, or even an endless cycle of being with no begining and no end. To me, that is no more explanation than not believing.