So is it the body of christ or not? Saying it is, but "not in the normal sense" is a hair split so fine that you cannot expect someone who isn't a believer to understand it because it makes no sense. It is not possible to misrepresent an argument that is nonsensical. Not a straw man.
So being a man is "an essential qualification to perform the rite" FACT not strawman.
There were official Church representatives in Africa telling AIDS infected people that using condoms increased the rate of HIV transmission. It is a fact that church reps were telling lies about the efficacy of condoms. There was a huge stir about it a year or so ago, you can't have missed it. The Church has since clarified it's position on the matter to prevent this from happening which is very much to their credit but doesn't change the fact that it was happening. Not a straw man.
He's speculating on the possible motives of someone who would change faiths. One difference between the churches, he points out, is that there aren't any women in the Catholic clergy. Who would want such a thing? Misogynists. It's a logical progression of thought. Not a straw man.
Then the Catholic Church is impotent as there are many other churches that have this power. It's seemingly a quite trivial matter to many faiths. Surely it must be easier than turning wafers into flesh that is not flesh "in the normal sense". If the Catholic god did not see fit to grant these powers perhaps Dawkins is wrong. Perhaps it is god that has the contempt for women and not the Church. This is the closest he comes to an actual straw man argument in this whole statement, and I don't think it quite makes the mark. More of an ad hom against Catholic husbands than anything else.
An inaccurate statement, perhaps, mostly because it uses the present tense rather than the past tense. Clearly not a straw man.
An opinion, a bit crude, but not one that I completely disagree with. Pandering to other faiths in order to lure some clergy to switching sides is a bit unseemly.
