No gay priests, part 4: Yes? No? Maybe?

A look at the headlines on this issue are starting to show just how confused everyone is about this document:

Guardian, UK: Vatican rules firmly against gay priests
The Independent, UK: Pope restates ban on gay priests and says homosexuality is 'disordered'
Times Online, UK: Pope's gay priest ruling is hailed by moderates
Minneapolis Star Tribune: Vatican document on priesthood raises questions
ABC Online, Australia: Vatican's stance on gay priests causes confusion
San Francisco Chronicle: Gay-inclined are cut some slack

Not that we expect accuracy or guidance from the secular media on this, but I wonder if the "confusion" is caused by the belief, both in the church and outside it, that being "gay" necessarily means having sex. No one presumes this about heterosexuals, of course, since most people are heterosexual and are evidently not having sex. Maybe that's the real problem here.