How can I put this simply: just because the vast majority of these priestly sexual abuse cases have been (so far) between men and post-pubescent male minors, it doesn’t follow that the problem is homosexuality.
Depends on what you mean. If you mean homosexuals are not, ipso facto, abusers the answer is clearly “Of course.” If you mean the homosexual population in the priesthood does not demonstrate a much higher statistical likelihood to be abusers, the facts are simply incontrovertible: 90%-95% of abuse cases are homosexual in nature. Sullivan’s argument is this: “Now it’s true that (so far) the overwhelming majority of lung cancer cases occur in those who smoke, but 100% of those cases occur in those who breath oxygen. Theocons like Weigel who insist on suggesting that most lung cancer can be eliminated by cutting out smoking are cleverly overlooking the fact that not every single person who smokes gets lung cancer and not every lung cancer victim smokes.” Sophomore logic students are invited to drive trucks through Sullivan’s reasoning.