Aside from pederast being exclusively a male action (according to Websters (http://www.m-w.com)) I get the idea and agree that teenage girls are in more danger of being molested by older men than teenage boys. However, there is no evidence that a man is homosexual except for the sexual acts he performs. The molesting of a boy is ipso facto homosexuality.
You did a terrific job separating the act from the orientation when it comes to pedophiles vs. pederasts.
Yes, bimbo is correct. I've also heard it called Ephebophilia. In either case, over 95% of of the abuse cases involved priests (males) molesting post pubescent boys under 18 years of age. Such acts have it's defenders mind you (ie North American Man-Boy Love Association or NAMBLA).
That same type of separation should be extended beyond that comparison. There are lots of heterosexual people who engage in homosexual activity. (My sense is that women are more likely to experiment, but that may not be true.)
There are lots of people with too much time on their hands. Many of the heterosexual men I've encountered that "experimented" with homosexuality were simply latent or in denial. (I worked in the theater for a while so I've had lots of opportunity to meet people who transcended gender.)
Many of the priests now being accused of molestation were recruited into the priesthood at a very early age, long before they had any opportunity to define for themselves what their orientation was (is).
A case can be made for this but it sounds much more like and excuse than a reason. However, a case can be made even more clearly that homosexuality itself is a yearning for extended adolescence.
Years ago, members of the clergy would also travel in threes since it was harder to commit sins if three people had to agree. (There used to be jokes about three nuns in a station wagon.) Since Vatican II, clergy members were extended much more freedom. Though pederasty was certainly an issue before the 1960's, the ability to keep it a secret became easier. The whole sexual revolution thing at the time also had an effect. We see that in secular life with increased abortions, out-of-wedlock births and divorce.
Most psychologists will tell you that these men are not homosexual, but instead are psychologically immature when it comes to sexual matters.
Listening to psychologists is what provided the false floor of reasoning for transferring abusive priests from parish to parish.
The answer may not be to ban homosexuals, but instead to stop recruiting young teens into the priesthood (something that has already happened, for the most part). I'm betting that 20 to 30 years from now, we'll see that the incidence of priests molesting children will be much less frequent.
Recruiting college age students is really the only practical way to maintain a celibate priesthood. As men get older, there are many more ties to society that would prevent them from becoming a priest as it is currently defined. (My wife has threatened to divorce me the day the Church allows married priests!) However, the problem for the past 30 years, maybe more, is that a "lavender mafia" as it's been called, has taken over the role of recruiting and training priests. I've heard that many seminaries are barely tolerable for young, orthodox, heterosexual men and that many leave before taking their vows. This aspect alone is going to be extremely difficult for Cardinal Estevez or anyone to change.