[Iscool]

The idea that there's some nutty "doctrine" among priests that results in sexual abuse, has been debunked time and time again.

Maybe because the wrong questions were asked...

It is no secret that the Catholic religion is inundated with queer priests, bishops and cardinals...The prohibition against marriage certainly would make the priesthood attractive to homos...

Within the Catholic priesthood there is easy access to young boys...Girls, not so much...It is my thinking that married (to women) priests would be far more heterosexual than than the unmarried priests currently in the system...

Therefore, it is far less likely (tho not impossible) that a heterosexual priest would be far less likely to molest and recruit boys into sexual perversion than it is for the queer priests...

[Mrs. Don-o]

This lacks explanatory power, because it fails to account for the fact that the major researchers in the field, like Philip Jenkins (LINK) and Charol Shakeshaft (LINK), have found the following:

• Married men are more likely to abuse children than unmarried
• Most child abuse takes place within the home. Child abuse is prevalent in all areas of society where there are lots of kids: schools, scouts, mentorship programs, youth organizations, sports, etc.
• Statistically, of all the professions, clergy are least likely to offend
• Doctors, Farmers and Teachers are the professions most likely to abuse children

Since the 1980's, when insurance companies started offering insurance for churches in sex abuse cases, the actuarial data has confirmed that there's no difference in the assessment of risk between Catholic Churches, Evangelical Churches, Synagogues, etc.

Charol Shakeshaft estimated that that "... the physical sexual abuse of students in [public] schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by [Catholic] priests."

So your underlying premise is not supported by the facts. You may need to revise your conclusions accordingly.