The John Jay Study showed it was priests and teenage boys. So yes, there was a homosexual dimension to it, but since it was legally minors that the John Jay report disclosed, the media could ignore the homosexual dimension of it. Take the case of McCarrick. There were 4 cases that were recently documented, the 1 in 1958 involved him grabbing a 16 year old (he was 28 at that time). The other 3 involved him harassing seminary students in their 20’s (homosexual dimension). Had the John Jay study documented incidents like McCarrick and the seminarians, the homosexual dimension could not have been ignored. However, while this is sinful (gravely) it did not under law warrant the state to intervene since it was not illegal under current U.S. law and the law at the time the sexual abuse crisis became well known, 2001-2002.
Did 'John Jay' study IF these perverts, schooled the minor 'Pre pubescence' boys, for the sole purpose of calling the sin a consenting homosexual relationship. One of the things I look forward to, perhaps, is getting a ring side seat, watching the excuse makers give a full accounting. I do not expect the John Jay doctrine to have any weight where it counts. The reams and volumes written in distinguishing the difference in when a so called 'father' of God messes with the young.