Defying the Master

First, I must say that Br. Timothy Radcliffe, OP intimidates the heck out of me. Not only is he a published author, residing at Blackfriars in Oxford and, of course, former Master General to
whom I vowed obedience, but he also has an English accent (and really wild hair).
However, I most strenuously disagree with many points of his recent article in The Tablet (may require registration), in which he seeks to interpret the new document
on homosexuality and the seminary put out by the Vatican today.
Fr. Timothy first reminds us of two things: we should interpret the document "positively" (presumably in a way that liberal, Western Europeans would consider positive) and that the vocation is a call from God (not the Church). Then he says something peculiar:

I have no doubt that God does call homosexuals to the priesthood, and they are among the most dedicated and impressive priests I have met. So no priest who is convinced of his vocation should feel that this document classifies him as a defective priest. And we may presume that God will continue to call both homosexuals and heterosexuals to the priesthood because the Church needs the gifts of both.

Now, no one pretends that God doesn't call sinners and broken men to be priests. In a way, all priests (as all people) are "defective" because we are imperfect (only perfect things have no defect). I have no doubt that God calls men who are sexually attracted to men to the priesthood. But that is quite different than God calling a homosexual to the priesthood.
God doesn't call a homosexual to the priesthood qua homosexual, but qua person. God calls us to our vocations as persons--we should not be reduced to our sexuality. God does not call us because of our sinfulness, but in spite of it. Yes, we may bring gifts derived from
our encounter with sin (a sense of humility, fortitude, etc) but the sin or defect is not itself a gift, as Fr. Timothy implies. A same-sex attraction is not a gift, but a defect (which may be seen as an opportunity to grow in virtue, as can all difficulties or temptations). We can see that Fr. Timothy has a very different understanding of homosexuality than does the Church. Fr. Timothy then attempts to understand what the document means by a "deep-seated homosexual tendency." He says that it cannot mean homosexual orientation, because he knows many good priests who have a homosexual orientation and are clearly called by God. But again he falls into a fallacy. He may not go so far as to say "A good priest I know does X. Therefore, X is good," but he comes close. He does seem to be saying that anyone who is called by God to be a priest cannot have a negative trait of enough magnitude to bar them from the ministry. Sadly, however, there are priests with problems relating to alcoholism, sexual abuse, anger issues, etc. Are all these not actually called to the priesthood? Similarly, could one say that all those whose marriages don't work weren't actually called to marriage? Or is there some other explanation?
I think that the vocational understanding of my former Master is a bit simplistic. God calls us to a certain way of life, but it is our choice to follow it. But that is not our only choice, he helps us prepare for the life he calls us to but we can fail in that preparation. If a person felt called to the priesthood, does that mean he could enter the seminary at 9? Of course not. Denying admission would not be an indication that that person is not called, but that he, in the Church's eyes, is not yet ready. Similarly, when the Church says that a man with a "deep-seated homosexual tendency" cannot be ordained, they are not saying that he does not have avocation. He simply needs to mature and reduce this tendency, if not eliminate it. Just because Fr. Timothy knows some good priests doesn't mean that it is not a good policy.
Fr. Timothy further reveals his differences with Church teaching when he says "Seminarians should learn to be at ease with whatever is their sexual orientation, content with the heart that God has given them," which puts heterosexuality on par with homosexuality (or I should say natural attraction to the opposite sex with an intrinsically disordered attraction to the same sex). Fr. Timothy rightly says that this homosexual tendency (or heterosexual one) should not be at the core of our identity, but he belies that statement by consistently referring to "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals" rather than the document's "homosexual tendency." The first overemphasizes its importance in identity. He also inflates its importance by using "orientation" which implies a fixed, immovable position, rather than a tendency. His false understanding is fully revealed when he says "I have known priests who thought that they were gay when they were 30, and then discover that they were not, and vice versa. " Using the phrase "discovered" implies an immutable, ontological status, at the core of one's being, unrelated to self-image, behavior, etc. Presumably any one of us could think we are heterosexual, get married, have children and then "discover" our true selves as a homosexual. This understanding is irreconcilable with his previous statement not to celebrate "as central to their lives what is not fundamental." Something that remains despite behavioral change and self-understanding seems pretty fundamental to me.
The Vatican document reflects a much more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the human person and sexuality than does Fr. Timothy's writing, which is riddled with contradictions and bad anthropology. Being told you are immature may sting, but it is not a denial of one's vocation. Indeed, it may be a confirmation of it, since immaturity implies potential, a potential that needs to be grown into, but potential nonetheless.
This is what the Vatican document says about vocation:

There are two indissociable aspects in every priestly vocation: the free gift of God and the responsible liberty of the man. Vocation is a gift of divine grace, received through the Church, in the Church and for the service of the Church. Responding to the call of God, the man offers himself freely to Him in love. The desire alone to become a priest is not sufficient and there is no right to receive Ordination. It is the duty of the Church— in Her responsibility to define the necessary requisites for the reception of the Sacraments instituted by Christ— to discern the qualification of he who wishes to enter the seminary, to accompany him during his years of formation and to call him to Holy Orders, if he be judged to be in possession of the requisite qualities.