This, and the fact that we aren't getting the information directly from him. It's likely a bit more nuanced then what the "article" (and I use that term loosely) is telling us - plus the language barrier / translation issues.
Also, not an illness - at least not by the DSM or ICD that I know of. Now, if what we are actually talking about is suppression of desire (which seems not too much of a leap), that's a different story.
Not to be incredibly nitpicky but I could not care one single hoot for what any DSM has to say, especially since these days its mostly farmaceuticals that get to call the shots.
Apart from that appaling method of acting, the history of the institution needs to be taken into account.
Seeing as as early as 30 years ago one can determine what we know as normal neurological behaviour such as homosixuality classed as being an illness one has to put major question marks at anything it has to say and carefully examine the determination process for every entry instead of just copy/ pasting.
Those that read it off a list and tell people what to do are really, really bad councillors.