[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Three things are needed for Consecration (assuming a validly ordained priest): right matter, right form and right intent. The first two are easily determined. It is the third which is difficult if not impossible to know.

A practicing homosexual could have 100% belief and intent of consecrating the host into the Body of Christ. As long as he uses proper matter and prayer form it is assumed to be valid. However, if said homosexual is in flagrant violation of basic rubrics and produces sermons/teaching documents (a la Cardinal Mahony) which deny Catholic Eucharistic belief, be afraid.

As for me personally, I take any sign of liturgical funny business as a message to stay away. Intent can be estimated (but not determined!) by observing exteriors: words and behavior. There is a priest in a nearby town who walks around this town with his male companion. Everyone knows he is a practicing homosexual. Ironically, he is a very popular priest. The bishop likely knows about the situation but does nothing. So, does that priest consecrate a valid Eucharist? Perhaps. However, if we are standing at the foot of the Cross during Mass, why would I want to condone or support a priest whose state of mortal sin is an abomination to Our Lord?

IIRC, there used to be a rule where priests in a state of mortal sin incurred another mortal sin if they offered Mass in that state. I think that belief went out after VII.

[AAABEST]

However, if we are standing at the foot of the Cross during Mass, why would I want to condone or support a priest whose state of mortal sin is an abomination to Our Lord?

Interesting point. I am extremely immature on doctrine at times (which is why I defer to others as much as possible) but I do know that if we are in mortal sin, we are commiting sacrilege by receiving communion.

If this is true, I can't imagine it pleasing to God that a phoney who is an unrepentant mocker be giving it.

[Campion]

right intent. The first two are easily determined. It is the third which is difficult if not impossible to know.

Theologians, orthodox ones, say that the intent required is the habitual intent to say Mass. Nothing more. You'll find that taught clearly prior to Vatican II, I believe. If the priest intends to say Mass, even if he's tired and not really thinking about it much, he has habitual intent.

IIRC, there used to be a rule where priests in a state of mortal sin incurred another mortal sin if they offered Mass in that state. I think that belief went out after VII.

Nope. Of course, an allowance might be made if a priest has to offer Mass for his people and is unable to get to Confession in time, but otherwise, not. Receiving the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is the sin of sacrilege. Saying Mass implies that the priest must receive the Eucharist. QED.