It's quite likely he doesn't (most priests I know and you know don't identify themselves in any way sexually), but there seems to be a desire now that he do so, so that he can be rousted from the priesthood or prevented from entering a seminary.
See, that's the problem here. When I was in the seminary, back in the 70s, there was no "identification" of one's sexual orientation. It was never discussed, no one ever talked about sexual attraction to women or men. It was as if we were asexual. In fact, much of our training just assumed we were; that we had all come to terms with celibacy, that that issue was settled, and now let's all just ignore our urgings and follow the Lord. When a man decided that he couldn't do that, he left on his own, or, if he was discovered in some compromising position, he was kicked out.
Now, I know that some of these men were homosexual; I could guess which ones, but I could be wrong. The thing is, they didn't talk about it, act on it, or give any hint that they were "gay".
It would be real shame at this point to force these men to somehow declare their sexual orientation in some kind of witch hunt to rid the priesthood of all gays.
This is what Cardinal George was referring to when he said on MTP that it is a difficult thing in most cases to determine which priests are gay. Nor, I would contend, should the Church do that.
Screen for homosexuality in the future, but let's not destroy some of these good men who are trying their best to live holy and celibate lives because we want to "purify" the Church of gays.
You couldn't do that even if you tried.
I have a dear friend who was in the minor and major seminaries for about 12 years, and he reports the same thing.