Refute profusely with facts? Why should I bother when you're making up incredulous assumptions based on absolutely nothing.
You're assuming, for starters, that priests are fucking male kids because they want sex. First of all, that would make them homosexuals. Second of all, that's not how rape works. Third of all, there are plenty of other outlets in which they can get perfectly consensual sex if that's all they're after, without ruining their lives and the names of the church they're a part of.
You're confusing correlation and causation which is an extremely basic error, hence why I had no interest in arguing with you.
1. Yes, yes it would make them homosexuals
2. I am very much aware how rape works, but you are making an assumption yourself that the priests wanted to exert power over these little boys and nothing else
3. This is true, yes, in fact I have heard about priests having live-in homosexual partners (as you do)
I can see your point now that you have written a proper response.
But I still maintain that a) the secret nature of the catholic church protects offending priests and therefore encourages non-offending priests to do the same
b) public celibacy is not the only motivator behind this behaviour, but it does offer the offending priests some benefit of the doubt on behalf of the public and church community
and I will add, based on your statement,
c) the priests that do this have the same psychological traits attributed to child molesters outside the church, and don't just want to have a good fuck.
I don't know why you have to be such a dick about this, by the way. Is it not better to get your argument across without abusing the other side with offensive slurs and swearing? Is it not a childish, pointless tactic? (I'm not just referring to you, btw > 50% of this thread).