Gay Seminarians

Count me among those who are profoundly confused, disappointed, and alienated by the Vatican's latest foray into the question of homosexuality.  Having read the document, here are a small subset of the questions it raises.

(1) Given the requirement of celibacy, what is it that makes "deep rooted homosexual tendencies" more troubling for candidates than any other deeply rooted sexual drives? 

(2) Is there some evidence, unmentioned in the document, that people with such "homosexual tendencies" are more likely to break their vows than people with deeply rooted heterosexual tendencies?  If so, why isn't the evidence referenced?  (In fairness, I'd be skeptical of the evidence if offered, but none is.)

(3) How are we supposed to resolve the tension between the Vatican's statement that people with deeply rooted homosexual tendencies are to "avoid every mark of unjust discrimination with respect to them" followed by a document whose sole purpose is apparently to impose such status-based discrimination in its treatment of applicants to the seminary?

(4) What in the world does it mean to be a "support[er]" of "gay culture"?

(5) What exactly is the relationship between the timing of this document and the pedophilia scandal?  (If the lesson the Church has learned from that scandal is that we need fewer gay priests, I'd say we're in for many more scandals to come.) 

(6) Does a gay priest who breaks his vows cause any more scandal to the faithful than a priest who, say, carries on an illicit relationship with a female parishioner?

(7) How, as a practical matter, is a bishop to distinguish between someone with "transitory" homosexual inclinations and "deep rooted" tendencies? 

(8) Presumably, those who "support the so-called gay culture" includes a number of straight seminarians who disagree with Church teaching on homosexuality.  What other ethical teachings are elevated to such a level that disagreement with the official Church teaching categorically disqualifies a candidate for the priesthood?

(9) Given the serious threat this document ascribes to gay priests, why is this document limited to gay seminarians (as opposed to gay priests already ordained)? 

(10) What is the connection between the document's treatment of homosexuals and its discussion, early in the document, of the priest's role as sacramental representation of Christ?  Is this a suggestion that those with "deep rooted homosexual tendencies" cannot perform such a role (in the same way that the Church uses this role -- one that is problematic for any number of scriptural and theological reasons -- to categorically exclude women from the priesthood)?