Your analysis only goes so far. The unknown part, the hidden part, the part that hasn't been fully revealed, is how many bishops engaged in cover-ups because they, themselves, were complicit in the crimes against young victims, or they were compromised as active homosexuals, even if not victimizers of minors, but subject to blackmail.
How many bishops RIGHT NOW are actually homosexuals where someone's "got the goods," and thus, these bishops don't act all that bishoply? One wonders when one sees a good and decent priest publicly punished for denying Holy Communion to self-professed Buddhist lesbians whether the punishing bishop has something to hide.
sitetest
How many bishops RIGHT NOW are actually homosexuals where someone's "got the goods," and thus, these bishops don't act all that bishoply? One wonders when one sees a good and decent priest publicly punished for denying Holy Communion to self-professed Buddhist lesbians whether the punishing bishop has something to hide.
Hence my suspicions about the USCCB-funded John Jay report's "reponse" categories, above, in post #3
You’re guessing that bishops are being blackmailed? Yes, I’d guess, some. That seems probable to me.