Yet another Catholic abuse scandal...

[Esquilax]

Sorry, pointing out that you lied about the existence of a new case of abuse isnt "quibbling".

Lied? No, the most you can do is say I misread the text, or perhaps used words you wouldn't have. I was under the impression that one of Australia's top ranking Catholic priests finally admitting that this is a thing, and that it was furthermore a thing that was covered up, counts as a scandal. If you want to label it as merely a continuation of a larger scandal, then yes, that is quibbling, and remarkably callous quibbling at that, considering that it still happened.

I didnt say "gays are paedophiles".

Good. If you did, you'd be wrong.

I said homosexual men committed the vast majority of the Catholic absue cases, which is the truth.

Proof, please. I mean, I gave you proof that, if anything, pedophilia is a distinct sexual attraction, independent of homo or heterosexuality, but if you're trying to ascribe something else then you'll need evidence before you can honestly call it truth.

Arte you able to distinguish the obvious difference between those two statements?

Just so long as you're able to distinguish the difference between an assertion and truth, in turn.

I didnt suggest it was "perfectly fine", I was questioning why the media and others are concealing facts and attempting to give a false impression.

Sorry, no: I don't know how it is where you are, but I've seen multiple news sources and documentaries over the years that have represented the full age range of the victims here; the scale of it is better for drama than covering it up, after all. As to your assertion on homosexuality, I'd suggest the media is rightfully leery about representing inflammatory topics that aren't even backed by data. At the very least, you'd only be able to prove parallel orientations, not that they're in any way connected.

I made no comment on any possible connection between homosexuality and paedophilia.

Given how common that canard is, you might understand why I went there.

I made a truthful statement regarding the fact that homosexual men were responsible for the majority of the abuse cases.

Maybe.

These men were ephebophiles - ie attracted to teenage boys - not paedophiles (attracted to children).

Or more accurately, there was a mix of the two. Though of course, still quibbling; age isn't the issue in contention here. Nonconsensuality is the part that should get the contention here; whether these victims were five or fifteen doesn't change that it's bad.

Older homosexual men who are attracted to young, but still sexually mature, males have long been recognised and celebrated in the gay community. "Chicken hawks".

In the same way that heterosexuals have "cradle-robber," I bet.

No-one is suggesting all gay men are predators - they are not - you need not be so defensive. But we must be able to openly discuss the reality behind the abuse cases, if we are to learn from / understand them.

Now that is a truth statement.

Quite ironic some are happy to tar all priests as abusers, but go mental at the thought of gay men being abusers

I think abusers is abusers, no matter what else they are. I do, however, get wound up about church coverups, which is a specifically religious thing in this case.