Your personal views aside, what the pope says is important, and what he does not say is important, to millions of people, Catholics and non-Catholics. His words may be as important as his actions.
I'm thinking that the victims of abuse don't care if he rails against homosexuals
What on earth are you talking about? Obviously, not all homosexuals are child rapists. There was no indication whatever for the pope to rail against homosexuals as a group. There was a need, however, for him to address the scandal with candor and seriousness and accuracy, and from what I have read, he did not do it.
Only a very few victims actually met with the pope. I think that a man who as an adolescent had been raped by a priest might well feel disappointment or anger that the crime committed against him was apparently not worthy of mention. Maybe I am wrong, maybe the pope did address the issue. If not, he certainly should have.
And just what good do you think would have come of the Pope pointing out that the vast majority of the abuse was done by men to post-pubescent boys? How do you think the media would have handled that? The message of the Pope would have been lost in the cacophony of the cries of homophobia. It would have been useless for him to do such a thing, and I think he was wise not to give homosexual activists an excuse for what would have been a well-publicized pity party.
You must not have been paying attention; the Pope mentioned the abuse several times, most notably on the plane flying over. He told the press that he was ashamed that these children and young people had suffered the abuse at the hands of priests who were supposed to be caring for them, not exploiting them. He mentioned it meetings with the Bishops, and also in his homily at St. Patrick's Cathedral yesterday.