"The traditional majority"opinion is that of enemies of the Catholic Church. Could that not make it suspect? The animosity of English public opinion--and I am talking about elite opinion-- toward Catholicism was so great that as late as 1940 Prime Minister Churchill could not be seen with the Catholic archbishop of Westminster, even though he liked the man and preferred his company to the archbishop of Canterbury, whom he did not like.
The traditional majority historical record is the combined story of all those abused by you plus some. But, in your mind, in a court of law, we're supposed to throw out the prosecution's entire case because you admit to it but say - well, it wasn't really that bad. History has already long since pronounced judgement.
Tell you what, let's take Charlie Manson and throw out the prosecution's case completely, let Manson write the record as though the whole world was wrong about him and doean't know any of the story. All the information is bad. What kind of story do you suppose we get using only his evidence, his point of view...
Let's let the Nazis throw out the whole story and all the evidence of the extermination of the Jews in WWII. Afterall, the whole world was just a bunch of Bigoted Anti-nazis. What record do you suppose we'd get there. I can tell you because we already have a pretty good view based on the neo-nazis and skinheads of today who will tell you in many cases that it never happened - it's just propaganda dreampt up by people who hate them. Not far off your approach.
What about Saddam? Perhaps we should throw out all the evidence against him and let Saddam and Baghdad Bob write the history.. Yeah, we know that one too - "The US Troops are committing suicide at the city limits.. there are no US troops in the city. We have utterly destrotyed them" This is the nature of propaganda, sir. And this is why we don't take the abuser's word for it.