Indeed, Fr. Cornelius à Lapide, S.J rightly unveils the symbolic meaning correlating the sexual differentiation to God and marriage. Also, he correctly explains that “the force of the Hebrew word,” that is אִישׁ, is not well-rendered by virago. However, אִישׁ itself does not ultimately signify that which inheres with the sexual nature (since the sexual differentiation points to two other invisible realities constitutive of human nature). It does primarily refer to the “male of animals,” as אִשָּׁה refers to the “female of animals” (which is basically all the fallen world, especially the culture we live in, knows). Their signified references (significations), however, lie beyond them. Thus, the key is to recognize the exact symbolic comparability between the אִישׁ and אִשָּׁה differentiation (Gen 2:22-23), referring as such to the sexual nature (in the visible order); and the זָכָר and נְקֵבָה differentiation (Gen 1:27), which concerns the two invisible categories of human nature signified by the former (the visible, sexual differentiation). The hinge of this revelation found in Sacred Scripture about the quiddity of man rests on the analogous correspondence between the visible and invisible differentiations of human nature as a tetra-structural whole.
Recall that זכר incorporates the following range of closely connected meanings: “memory,” “remembrance,” “acknowledgment,” “make known,” “being summoned to worship or court;” and, נקבה, the following range: “distinguish,” “passage,” “tunnel,” “opening,” “sudden concavity” [= capacity (the encompassing meaning with regard to the human soul and its union with God)], and even “curse” (consistent with how the curse of original sin came about, i.e. through the perversion of the intellect of the female help brought unto man, see Gen 2:20-22 and Gen 3:6). Hence, a fire (אֵשׁ) does remain there (in the relationship of אִישׁ and אִשָּׁה).
In relationship to the paradigmatic model of the Temple, one can better appreciate the underlying analogousness coupling זכר with the high-priesthood (Holy of Holies (3)), נקבה with the priesthood (Holy (2)), איש with the masculine order (Court of Men (1)), and אישה with the feminine order (Court of Women (0)). The remedy to the physical, moral, and metaphysical horror of homosexuality is given with such a structure, revealed to St. Moses on Mount Sinai, and ultimately raised up by the Incarnate Word after three days (John 2:19-22):
“Solvite templum hoc, et in tribus diebus excitabo illud […] Ille autem dicebat de templo corporis sui. ”
It also highlights the revealed anthropological reasons, besides the intrinsically valid argument of authority made by the Church, against ordaining women to the priesthood. Hence, the intrinsic falsity and deadly confusion at the heart of heretical churches “ordaining” women, a heinous aberration akin to the unnatural sin of sodomy. Maybe the Novus Ordo itself will eventually elect to do likewise one day, for the benefit of those who as yet do not recognize that it is not the Catholic religion.
Noteworthy to remember, in passing, that the Hebraic addition of a ה/h in אִשָׁה is the same as is made to the proper name of Sarai/שָׂרַי, who became Sarah/שָׂרָה (Gen 17:15).
ה/h is the key hieroglyphic letter of in-spiration, the literal Hebraic pictogram for “window” and “breath/wind” --> spiritum, also pictographically standing for the double active (0) and passive (3) intra-Trinitarian spiration prophetically expressed in the Thrice Holy Tetragrammaton:
יהוה/YHWH => YH0WH3