Not according to the 1986 letter of the SCDF, which uses the word “homosexual” several times for the orientation.
I should read that letter…but I do trust your word on it. There is still a very strong point to be made, however (even given my linguistic mistake), which is that the consistent Catholic policy, so far as the Church at large goes, is to not deliberately ordain someone who believes contrary to Church Teachings; by default, someone who is actively homosexual and who condones such an act is clearly going against Church teaching. Thus, even if a rebellious bishop might do otherwise, it is not the Catholic way to ordain such a person. That would not be a problem with the Church’s Rule of Faith (Rules of Faith being the subject of debate here) but with people willing to go against that rule. Sola Scriptura, unfortunately, has allowed for such people to be ordained as a result of ambiguous words from ancient times.
As to 3 - there are counter-examples of this; & (equally important) that statement is impossible to prove or disprove, because what it says can always be redefined - it’s a version of what an OP has called the “No true Scotsman” fallacy. So even though there are counter-examples, they can always be ruled out by the simple expedient of redefining one’s terms so as to exclude them.
I assume you meant #2? If so, even if there are counter-examples, the
examples still exist…both exist in Protestantism, which only proves the point further; if only the
examples existed, and not the counter-example, Sola Scriptura would be proven to be stable on this issue, even if not in agreement with Catholic morality; however, it’s not even stable here, as evidenced by the existence of both the example I’ve cited and examples to the contrary. Do you intend to deny it? I could easily find websites proving this point about people interpretting the scriptures this way; it’s not merely something made up. That should also be good enough to prove the statement. There simply
are Protestants out there who do what I have said. I didn’t say that theoretically. I have seen it attempted, and I cannot say how many are fooled by those attempts.
3 is also aprioristic: whether X can happen is not discussed; the possibility that it might, is ruled out from the very start, which means that because it has been decided in advance that it cannot happen, no examples of its happening need be considered.
Actually, I’m quite sure that any Bishop who did so would be going against the Teachings and preference of the Magisterium. And when I said “accepted”, I meant by the Church and within the context of Church Teachings and the Rule of Faith; not by a Bishop with an agenda or moral laxity.
No similarity ? None whatsoever ? This is a very dangerous game to play 
- if there is so much horror, why the quickness to say what amounts to: “Omigod, I know we are scum - but at least we are not as scummy as those pervs over there”. There may be horror - but is it any different from the horror of the self-righteous being red-handed in the act of proving they are as morally useless as those they despise ? And how do the sins of others - no matter how great - make us whiter than white ? They don’t. We fool only ourselves if we imagine that they do. We’ve every reason for humility, but none at all to chuck stones at others. Doing that may distract attention - it doesn’t make our failings any less real.
Our failings are real, yes. I’m not denying that. And our failings are just as bad as Protestant ones, sometimes worse because we
know better when
we fail. But our failures are failures of Catholic
people, of Catholic
priests, perhaps Catholic
bishops…but
not of our Rule of Faith. Apparently Sola Scriptura leaves enough wiggle room to allow for all this; people who make these fallacies claim to be following the scriptures - if someone says they aren’t, it’s the conservatives word against the liberal, if Sola Scriptura is to be accepted, with no means of resolve. If , on the other hand, the Magisterium’s teachings were obeyed and respected, there is almost (if not) zero wriggle room - almost no one who goes against the Church Teachings tries to deny it; instead, they challenge it openly, suggesting that the Church Teachings are wrong. That makes it clear to the Faithful Catholic wishing to follow the Church’s Teaching what he
should do. A Faithful Protestant trying to follow the Bible’s teachings might have a very hard time first discerning what those teachings
are due to all the controversy.
And please note that an attempt to share one’s beliefs is not the same as “chucking stones” in the first place. I do not believe that a Protestant sinner is any worse than we Catholic sinners. It’s more about the fact that a Catholic sinner has a far better means to
realize he/she is sinning and clean up the act, whether or not he/she chooses to do so.
