You make good points. It's not quite as clear up close as it is from a distance.
My sons go to an all-boys Catholic high school. It would be unsurprising if it turned out that several members of the faculty were homosexual men. I can easily think of three or four candidates. But they keep it out of the school. If they have “partners,” they are discreet.
If it were up to me, I'd screen out homosexuals - even chaste ones dedicated to upholding the teachings of the Church - from teaching at an all-boys high school. But it isn't up to me.
And to a great extent, in places like Massachusetts and Maryland (the state in which my sons’ high school is located), neither do the administrators. Maryland law explicitly forbids employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. I'm betting that Massachusetts law does, too. As long as a member of the faculty ostensibly agrees with Church teaching regarding homosexual acts, it would be difficult to sustain a decision not to hire an otherwise highly-qualified candidate, or to fire him once hired.
Even someone in an active homosexual relationship, if he or she kept it discreet, could say, “I accept the Church's teachings, but I'm struggling with them, myself.”
If Catholic schools fired folks every time they sinned seriously but privately, we'd have to close a lot of them down for want of faculty.
In this case, the AD made it easy by “marrying” her “partner,” in that that was a legal, formal declaration against the faith.
sitetest
And in that you can see the end game. The ultimate goal of all this is to be able to prohibit the Church from teaching about these sorts of things. With such laws, the Church can be infiltrated, and her teaching undermined, and ultimately prohibited.