This reader makes a fair point about where I didn’t go:

I had a quick comment about your post this morning – the new document from the Vatican lists three reasons that would result in someone not being admitted to the seminary. You addressed the two more clear-cut ones (someone who practices homosexuality or who supports the so-called gay
culture) and I can see a reasonable argument for denying entrance to the seminary to people guilty of either of those charges.
But you skipped over the third – and to my mind, most troubling – restriction, to those who “present deep-seated homosexual tendencies.” The Catholic Catechism clearly delineates between the homosexual act and homosexual tendencies. What makes a celibate homosexual (or a celibate person with deep-seated homosexual tendencies) any less able to be a priest than a celibate heterosexual? Again, it’s the actions that should cause the concern, not someone’s tendencies.
As for the comment from Cardinal Grocholewski, I think the answer to “Why would you even want to?” is a simple one – these gay men are receiving a calling to be a priest. An alternate question to the Cardinal might be:
“Why would the Church want to deny these men the vocation they seek?”

ME: That overlook wasn’t intentional, though certainly appears convenient on my part. What I took away from the “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” language was something like: If the tendencies are so deep and overwhelming as to define a man, this will be an impediment to the priesthood. But that does not exclude a man who has, in fact, been attracted to men, but doesn’t let that define who he is–and is not something he acts on or believes should be acted on. I don’t think that this new document offers much if any comfort to a homosexual struggling with what the Church teaches on homosexuality (which is regrettable, especially as commentary paints the Vatican as anti-gay), but for what it is, a document on homosexuality and the priesthood, it seems to make sense—and there is an element of necessity to it as far as seminaries go.

Even having only quickly read the document, I do wish the “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” bit was better defined as to not leave itself open to misinterpretation (fair or unfair) and added pain for anyone (or discouragement for men truly called to the priesthood). But I hope there’s a healthy discussion coming—and the Church can use this as a teaching moment.

(Another e-mailer adds:

Regarding the new letter regarding gays in the clergy, could it be the case that “deep-rooted homosexual tendencies” in this context simply means the inability to refrain from homosexual conduct because of an insuperable impulse? In any event, the document seems to suggest implicitly that a tendency is not “deep-rooted” (and thus not disqualifying) if it can be overcome three years prior to ordination. I take this to mean that if a gay candidate for priesthood has observed chastity for that long, then he’s free to serve.

)