Well merely coincidence that over 80% were boys? I don’t think heterosexual men are attracted to males of ANY age. So you think that the only criteria was that the victim be a minor? That otherwise heterosexual males ignored their chromosomes and their hormones just so they could prey sexually upon a minor of either gender?
Here’s the irony, the same people who are so determined to avoid calling this problem what it is, predatory homosexuality, are the same ones who claim that one cannot change their sexual orientation

Sorry that dog don’t hunt.
The Jay Report focuses on abuse and does not address the problems caused by homosexuality in the seminaries, in the priesthood, in monasteries, and with orders, etc. That these abusive priests were caught and prosecuted (as they should have been) for preying upon minors does not mean they were not also engaged in homosexual activity with other men. In fact there were subsequent reports that certain seminaries were a hotbed of homosexual activity and a holy and orthodox candidate need not apply or if he did was quickly voted off the island.
Please explain if you still believe that the abusing priests did not experience SSA but simply went after whatever kid was available, why 80% of the victims were males? Further as the Jay Report did investigate, did this change in later years? IOW the early cases of priest abuse had a far greater incidence of preying upon girls AND boys. But factor in the later years and the huge swing to almost exclusively male victims reduced it to a mere 80%.