A FEW WORDS TO ALL
One fact that is often overlooked is that the priests were not typically involved with children but with young teenagers - young men specifically. Thus, the problem was not pedophilia but homosexuality.
The media has overlooked this because homosexuality enjoys a sympathetic relationship with the press.
Here are a few facts from Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
Seminary training
The 2004 John Jay Report stated “the problem was largely the result of poor seminary training and insufficient emotional support for
men ordained in the 1940s and 1950s.”[227] A report by the National Review Board issued simultaneously with the John Jay Report pointed to two major deficiencies on the part of seminaries: failure to screen candidates adequately, followed by failure to “form” these candidates appropriately for the challenges of celibacy. These themes are taken up by a recent memoir[228] that combines a first-hand account of life in a minor seminary during the 1960s with a review of the scientific literature about sexually abusive behavior, and then identifies specific aspects of seminary life that could have predisposed future priests to engage in such behavior.
Impact of psychology from previous decades
Some bishops and psychiatrists have asserted that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling.[229] Thomas Plante, a psychiatrist specializing in abuse counseling and considered an expert on clerical abuse, states “the vast majority of the research on sexual abuse of minors didn’t emerge until the early 1980’s.
So, it appeared reasonable at the time to treat these men and then return them to their priestly duties. In hindsight, this was a tragic mistake.”[35]
Robert S. Bennett, the Roman Catholic Washington attorney who headed the National Review Board’s research committee, named “too much faith in psychiatrists” as one of the key problems concerning Catholic sex abuse cases.[230] About 40% of the abusive priests had received counseling before being reassigned.[231]
Pedophilia and ephebophilia
In Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity: The Journal of Treatment and Prevention, Cimbolic & Cartor (2006) noted that because of the large share of post-pubescent male minors among cleric victims there is need to further study the differential variables related to ephebophilia (sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19)[232][233] versus pedophilia (sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally those 13 years of age or younger) offenders.[234] Cartor, Cimbolic & Tallon (2008) found that 6 percent of the cleric offenders in the John Jay Report are pedophiles, 32 percent ephebophiles, 15 percent 11 & 12 year olds only (both male and female), 20 percent indiscriminate, and 27 percent mildly indiscriminate.[235]
They also found distinct differences between the pedophile and ephebophile groups. They reported that there may be “another group of offenders who are more indiscriminate in victim choice and represent a more heterogeneous, but still a distinct offender category” and suggested further research to determine “specific variables that are unique to this group and can differentiate these offenders from pedophile and ephebophile offenders” so as to improve the identification and treatment of both offenders and victims.[235]
All victims in the John Jay report were minors. Using a non-standard definition of “pre-pubescent,” the Causes and Context Study of the John Jay College estimated that
only a small percentage of offender priests were true pedophiles.[236] The study classified victims as pre-pubescent if they were age 10 or younger, whereas the age bracket specified in the current guidelines issued by the American Psychiatric Association is “generally age 13 or younger.” A recent book estimates that if the latter definition were used instead of the former, the percentage of victims classified as prepubescent would have been 54% rather than the 18% figure cited by the Causes and Context report, and that a higher percentage of priests would therefore have been classified as pedophiles.[228] The same book also points out that with the pending new definition of “pedohebephilic disorder” in DSM-5, an even higher percentage of victims would fall into a category consistent with their abusers having a recognized psychosexual disorder.
relates who dare support such in their iniquities, especially in view of money or other temporal advantages, shall be subject to a like punishment.