Your difficulty is the lack of precision in what you rant.
Crimes against thousands of children were committed by thousands of priests. And often covered up by their bishops (and police officers, and prosecutors, and judges).
Some of these children were very young, a relatively small percentage were also female, and a relatively small minority of the priests committing these crimes committed them against such victims.
But over 80% of the victims were boys, and the great majority were either entering puberty or had already entered puberty.
The crime in these cases wasn't pedophilia but rather ephebophilia, and in particular, homosexual ephebophilia.
There is a difference between these crimes.
That you miss the difference allows the bishops to get away with their sleight of hand. They've conned folks like you into thinking this was primarily a problem of pedophile priests. That was a component, but not the vastly larger component.
The vastly larger component was the admission of homosexual men into the priesthood in large numbers, permitting the emergence of a homosexual culture within seminaries and within the priesthood. Apparently, ephebophilia is a rampant disorder of the homosexual culture - preying on young men, and boys-becoming-men is one of their special sicknesses.
But to admit that the problem was largely one of homosexual ephebophilia would be to admit that the problem was permitting homosexual men into the priesthood in the first place. Over time, I've come to the conclusion that a significant number of our bishops are likely homosexuals themselves. Thus, the desire to hide the true nature of the crime, as it would leave them defenseless against their own consciences.
“I am very disappointed in you.”
Oh my. What shall I do.
sitetest
The homosexual problem of the priesthood is as you say - and unfortunately it still has not been properly addressed. So, are we to debate the crime of "pedophila" versus " ephebophilia?"
In either case, by the law - these were children. That is clear, and the crimes remain. Is a 7 year boy old more of a victim of rape by a priest than a 11 or 13 year old boy?
Does this age difference somehow lessen the impact of this enormous crime?
I realize that some homosexual men (priests included) favored pre-teen or early teen boys (and in very rare instances girls).
The number of criminal priests still numbered in the thousands. But I can see your point that the vast majority preyed upon boys on the verge of, or in the stages of, puberty.
So - where are we? We are still faced with a tragedy of vast dimension. Moreover, the church has paid billions, many lives were shattered, many victims or their families committed suicide.
It appears Satan is having a field day.
Thank you for your response and clarification. I realize now you understand this problem better than I imagined.