Not really - I credit it to an OJ trial level of ineptitude coupled with some blinding vehemence, a cash-cow target that brings ambulance chasers out of the woodwork (to use the judge's term), and the usual pitfalls of human egos mixed with grandstand cases.
I do not deny that there has been sexual abuse in the church, and that in some instances church authorities have tried to silently hide it - and in some cases have consciously looked the other way. I also know that some have nurtured a tolerant atmosphere toward active homosexuality - I had acquaintances in the seminary decades ago who both saw evidence of the lavender mafia in action, sometimes more subtly, sometimes less. But this case will stand on the evidence and the quality (or lack thereof) of its execution. The gravest accusations necessitate the highest standard of proof, or we could all go accusing each other of the most heinous crimes vindictively (for example, watch the acccusations fly in a child custody case).
As always in cases that involve lawyers going after deep pockets, sometimes where there's smoke there's fire, and sometimes there's a buck to be made and a bandwagon of opportunist accusers/victims. Sift the facts and see. There's probably some of both here, but I wonder if we'll be given the chance to make a rational discernment.