Sometimes what are made out to be quite complex problems are actually quite simple if one sees to the root of them. The problem of "homosexuals in the clergy" is one such. Amy Welborn has an outstanding post on this topic. She cuts to the heart of the problem in this paragraph:
The problem is not, in simple terms, the homosexual priest. The problem is priests who don't believe what the Catholic Church teaches on sexuality, who don't preach it, who don't witness to it in the confessional, and who don't live it in their private lives.
This is very similar to a point I tried to make a couple of years ago in a post (here) on the ordination as bishop of (the openly homosexual) Gene Robinson:
... the problem with the consecration of Gene Robinson is not that he is a sinner (for so are we all), nor that the sin of homosexual acts is any worse than any other sin (it is not). Nor is it primarily that he appears to be an unrepentant sinner (that may be a problem, but it is not primary). The problem is that Robinson explicitly and publicly teaches that homosexual acts are not sinful (and backs up his teaching in his manner of living). This is contrary to the Apostolic deposit of faith. Further, he has explicitly rejected the authority of Scripture in Tradition. It matters not whether the authority that he would substitute for Scripture in Tradition is modern science, our current or emerging cultural norms, or simply his own personal opinion. What matters is that he has rejected Scripture in Tradition.
So the problem is not his sexual orientation or his sexual practice; it is that he is a false teacher.
We who are arguing for loyalty to historic Christian teaching and practice regarding these socially- and politically-charged matters would do well to keep our focus on what people believe, teach, and confess, rather than on the politics, sociology, or even the morality involved. Mrs Welborn does so admirably in her post. If we believe, teach, and confess the orthodox catholic faith, we can't go too far wrong.