I'm afraid I don't understand that you find my response amazing.  I understand the point, but as the child of linguits, I disagree. 
Women are included in the language but "man" and its variations do not always mean "a" man but all of the race of men, that is, humanity.  It's not the Church's job to impose a particular change in language to assuage the feelings of a few when the vast majority of the English-speaking world understand that the language has developed in such a way that "man" carries two definitions and the context of a document or statement make it clear which is meant.  It would be silly to interpret a statement like "Jesus died for all men" as "Jesus died for only males".  Similarly, it is imprecise to say that "Jesus died for all" when he did not die for mankind, bovine, and crinoids.  You may argue that context supplies the definition for "all", and I won't disagree, in this case, but in other cases, fumbling around with "inclusive" language has been both problematic.