InsightScoop links to a video of Fr. Fessio and Fr. Martin on PBS’s News hour. As you would expect Fr. Fessio accurately talks both about the document and Church teaching and Fr. Martin (America Magazine) is less accurate.
What Fr. Martin said was that the document would force seminaries to drop people who are already there. So I guess he is saying that some seminaries knowingly have seminarians who have deep-rooted homosexual tendencies and/or support the homosexual culture since this is what the document actually bars. He also goes on about the good and celibate heterosexual vs. good and celibate "gay" priest comparison and that people are born that way. Fr. Martin then went on to say that the document explicitly related the need for the document to the sexual abuse crisis. Obviously there is a causal link to this document, but the document in no way explicitly or even implicitly make any correlation to the abuse scandal and does not even address the subject at all.
I am sure that there are many like me who were already tired of the reactions to this document way before it even came out. I really wished it hadn’t been published pretty much at the start of Advent, though I guess the typical reactions are pretty penitential. Though the distracters can at least be thankful that it wasn’t published on Feb 21 – The feast day of St. Peter Damian.
I really don’t like the terminology of "homosexual person" used by both this document and the Catechism. I think this wording plays into the whole homosexual orientation where their sexual attraction is almost put on the same level as their personhood. The Catechism does not talk about the adulterous, alcoholic, or the fornicating person. Personhood should not be equated with a fault and especially to a grave disorder. Terminology means something which is why it is problematic when Catholics throw around terms like sexual identity, gay, and orientation. Fr. Martin always used the word gay and talked about orientation, whereas Fr. Fessio used much better terminology.