That's the way I read it too. Except, he seemed to be saying that this is NOT pedophilia, it's ONLY homosexuality because the boys are past the start of puberty? That gets sketchy. Priests don't tend to have consistent, unsupervised access to boys until they are about 12 years old (alter boys, servers, bible studies, CCD classes, etc.). Further, the article seems to suggest that one is worse than the other, as if there is a different level of consent. It's RAPE either way you cut it. And it should be punished as harshly.
If the priests were; ahem; altered; would the problem then go away?
If the problem were *just* homoseuxality, then they wouldn't be going after younger boys. They'd be keeping it among themselves where they'd have willing, compliant partners who would be happy to keep their mouths shut and not risk getting caught.
The fact that they went after young teenaged boys indicates that the problem IS pedophilia.
And I agree with you that very likely the only reason they didn't have more kids under 12 is access.
Because in all honesty, a 12 year old can still be pretty much NOT sexually mature. Twelve is just the beginning of that phase in a child's life and while some kids have reached sexual maturity at that age, a great many have not but still more closely resemble children, not men.
That whole argument is just an attempt to downplay the seriousness of the issue by making it look not so bad.
IOW, damage control.