That said,I think we need to demand statistics that are accurate. Then as in any reasonable organization its time for risk assessment. If it turns out that 98% are man-boy abuses,then an analysis needs to be made.There are statistics of significance or deviation from the norm,that can be applied. If the abusers are found to be homosexual {and they will be found to be IMHO)then it means that the Church needs to determine objective criteria,act to remove them from the priesthood and take great pains to not admit them to the seminaries.
Great care will need to be taken to assure that a priest who inappropriately touched someone over their clothing is not lumped in with a sodomizer when doing risk assessments.For instance, Cardinal Mahoney's well orchestrated accuser should not be used to swell the statistics of man-woman abuse. Does anyone know how Cardinal Mahoney is?
I would like to think so, but I don't. I believe some people, both lay and clergy, would be satisfied with whatever decrease in abuse they get from banning known homosexuals from the priesthood.
"95%" "98%" were teenage boys -- ban homosexuals! I'm not hearing anything about the 2-5% that aren't teenage boys -- a stat I'm not quite believing anyway simply because of the number of pre-teen boys we're hearing about.
I'm not hearing anything about future molestors, and they will exist even if all the known homosexuals are gone. "Serial and notorious" -- what the heck does that mean? 5? 6? More than one per parish? The victim doesn't accept the pay-off and goes to the press?
No more paying off victims, no more hiding the accused, and law-enforcement investigates accusations, not the Church.
Give me that and you can go ahead and discuss and set whatever internal policies you want.