It's either a sin or a medical problem. This guy seems like he sees it as more of a medical problem than a moral failing (which it is).
And the whole notion that homosexuals in the seminary should be shielded and protected (which the confidentiality does) is why the Church ends up in so much trouble.
They've got to figure this out at some point.
It can be neither. Homosexual tendencies, per se, are not sinful. But whatever the origin, homesexual activity is always sinful. The Church is pointing out that although science may indicate deep-seated proclivity going back to youth, there is a whole other, psychologically treatable category of transitory homosexuals. The issue is pastoral care of individuals who can be psychologically helped, versus those with a cross that might be much more difficult to resolve, not whether or not homosexual activity is a sin. It always is.
I never thought of it as a 'moral failing' before. At least this appears to be a good attempt at addressing a big problem. And, it's fitting that help may be had rather than arbitrarily turning someone away.
Why not both? A physiological predisposition to a vice don't turn that vice to good. Gluttony, for example. And the insanity defense requires a lock-up AND a priest.