[TSgt]

The real problem seems to me that he has difficulty accepting that there is a connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse. Nevertheless, the report he himself cites indicates unquestionably that "the scandal", in addition to being one of child abuse, was one of homosexuality. It was not a case of randomly selected men abusing randomly selected children. It was overwhelmingly a case of militant homosexual men abusing boys. I'm sick of folks trying to cover for the faggots by obscuring the homosexual angle. It's almost like the faggot-protectors don't want the problem to be solved.

Nobody is covering for homosexuals and I'm well aware of the connection between them and the common abuse of young boys. I'm sick and tired of Catholic apologists attempting to water down the abuse as homosexual behavior and not child rape. 81% of victims were male and 19% female. It is factually wrong to call this a purely homosexual problem when almost a quarter of the victims were female.

[ArrogantBustard]

Nobody is covering for homosexuals and I'm well aware of the connection between them and the common abuse of young boys.

So quit obfuscating and obscuring it.

I'm sick and tired of Catholic apologists attempting to water down the abuse as homosexual behavior and not child rape.

I'm sick and tired of protestant propagandists misrepresenting what Catholic apologists are doing. Nobody is "watering it down". That's (apparently, since you said it) your interpretation. YOU ARE WRONG. We are properly identifying the problem. If the problem is not properly identified, it cannot be solved. Your actions, feeble though they be, serve to OBSCURE the problem and PREVENT a solution. By interfering (however feebly) with the solution, YOU HAVE BECOME PART OF THE PROBLEM.

81% of victims were male and 19% female.

And around 1% to 2% of the general population is homosexual. By your own testimony, this problem is overwhelmingly HOMOSEXUAL. WHY do you cover for the homosexuals???