When I took my first Safe Environment course years ago, I said to the presenter that I thought the offending priest were Homosexuals because all those offended were boys. I was told no it is the attributes, like soft skin, that was the attraction. I am not an anti homosexual person. But, the issue comes up again. I don’t know about the very young children but the boys and seminarians that were abused were abused by homosexuals IMO. That does not make all homosexuals unfit for the priesthood but it is a serious red flag. Seeing the damage done and considering whether it is fair to ask men with SSA to live in an all male priesthood, I favor a bane of homosexuals who have acted out. And closely monitoring all seminarians for sexual behavior.
My uncle was the vice rector of a seminary in the 1950’s. The vice rector dealt with discipline. Once he told my Mon, his sister, that he had to send a couple boys home. She ask what they did. They were on an excursion and the boys stopped in a small grocery store and they were told not to stop anywhere. My mom pleaded their case. He said if they really had a vocation they would never have taken the chance of being caught. So I am shocked when I hear of seminarians having sex and being allowed to stay.