Most sexual abusers are not celibate. Most sexual abusers are married. Why would celibacy make a heterosexual go after a member of the same sex and much less a child? Do you skip over the Scripture in which Jesus talks about eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven? Do you skip over the Scriptures in which Paul talks about the beauty of virginity and tells one not to take a husband or wife if one doesn’t have one because the time is short, though he does permit marriage?
Something like 30% of sexual abuse cases involve homosexuals—a group of 2% of the population.
This means homosexuals as a group, clearly have an abuse problem. Does this mean all abuse? No, but if 2% are doing 30% of the abusing, a MUCH higher percentage must be abusers than amidst hetrosexuals.
It would be surprising that for a life that requires celibacy—in our sex-saturated world—an undue number of men struggling with homosexual tendancies wouldn’t want it. You grow up in a religious home—and struggle with same-sex attraction as a teen—and the priesthood would seem to be a good place to go—since you know it’s wrong, and you cannot fulfill your sexual desires...so go and be celibate!
I really don’t see why it’s not self evident that the celibacy requirement is bound to attract more of that 2% than other callings.
If you ask any Roman Catholic scholar who’s studied the percentage of homosexual-oriented priests too—they will tell you it is a LOT more than 2%...
I don't believe that, I would like to see those statistics that prove that most sexual abusers as "married", and married does not mean people shacking up and drifting in and out of hook up relationships.