CWN's report, "Gay Italian priests protest Vatican statement,"
Although I think these guys have adopted a rather simplistic view of the instruction (and if I read it the same way they do, I'd say they were justified in being insulted), at least they've got it's basic content right. They recognize that it's not endorsing business as usual.
I would caution them on one of their conclusions, "they had no more difficulty in remaining celibate than heterosexual priests." It's rash to make such a claim without strong statistical evidence to back it up.
As to taking the matter as a personal insult, I am more in sympathy with this, though I don't agree with it. It is undoubtedly a great challenge to meekly accept the Church's characterization of the homosexual inclination as "objectively disordered." Nevertheless, it would be much healthier to do so, and to accept the challenge this presents to one's spiritual growth. In principle, it should be much easier to do so than for a narcissist to accept the "objectively disordered" character of their love, and no harder than for all of us to accept the fact that our tendency to sin, our concupiscence, is "objectively disordered."
I am particularly sympathetic to homosexuals who are already undergoing seminary formation or who have already been ordained. You have invested a huge part of your life in a very worthy enterprise. A compassionate Church will permit homosexual priests (those, at least, who are faithful and celibate) to continue in priestly ministry. It is undoubtedly true that their contribution has been highly praiseworthy, and their congregations would rightly be devastated if they were to lose them.
I am also very sympathetic to bishops who have a great deal of trouble as it is finding vocations. It may well be that being much more restrictive about admitting homosexuals to formation may ultimately encourage greater participation from so-called "straights." Nevertheless, the challenge presented to bishops is likely to be heartbreaking, for there will continue to be some homosexual men of tremendous ability and very worthy character who feel a calling to the priesthood. How should they follow the instruction? When and where do they decide that their personal views of the promise of a given homosexual candidate outweighs the very legitimate and very important concerns of the Dicastery and of previous popes?
There may be a theological issue here, regarding the unsuitability of homosexual priests in representing Christ as the bridegroom of the Church. Whether this is so, it seems clear enough that the instruction did not emphasize this. Perhaps it should have been emphasized. In the absence of this determination, it seems to me there is still room for prudential judgment.
I personally do not believe I am qualified to make such prudential judgments. I only hope and pray that the diocesan ordinaries and order generals are. I tend to be very conservative on such issues. If I were in their position, I would simply follow the instruction, and (barring a clear determination of the theology) pray that guidelines will emerge for more exceptions in the future.