Dude, Bill Donohue tried to dismiss the widespread sexual abuse by priests. This included blaming the victims, saying they weren't abused because they were 16, said the church had a homosexual problem not a pedophile problem... as if the victims must have been gay. On top of that, many girls and kids far younger then 16 were abused as well, which he largely ignores.
But hey, I guess he's blunt speaks his mind, so it's still a net win?
So I tried to look into this. Here are the claims you made:
"Including the victims, saying they weren't abused because they were 16"
I was unable to find verification of this; can you point to where he said this?
"the church had a homosexual problem not a pedophile problem... as if the victims must have been gay."
This one is close to something he said... though I don't understand the "as if the victims must have been gay." His assertion,
as argued in this article, is that the
perpetrators mostly were, citing the fact the the John Jay Report said that victims were overwhelmingly male (81%). I don't know how you get to the idea that the victims must have been gay.
In regards to the "homosexual problem not a pedophile problems" that comes from the numbers. As noted, the victims were overwhelmingly male. But only a minority were prepubescent. Now, he appears to make an error when he says that "78% were post-pubescent" but what the John Jay Report more specifically says is: ""It is worth noting that while the media has consistently referred to priest-abusers as “pedophile priests,” pedophilia is defined as the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Yet, the data on priests show that 22 percent of victims were age ten and under, while the majority of victims were pubescent or postpubescent." That is, 78% are above 10, and an unspecified "majority" are pubescent or postpubescent. It's not quite clear to me if they are dividing up prepubescent/pubescent/postpubescent by years and if so by what years. Regardless of the exact percentages, we know that prepubescent children were a minority, compared to the clear majority of males (while "pedophilia" in popular parlance, particularly nowadays, is often used to refer to attraction to older people like teenagers, that is not the technical meaning of the term).
That's the point he's making, and while I think it's to some extent overstated, he is ultimately correct that the victims were overwhelmingly male and were minority prepubescent. I don't see how someone gets "as if the victims must have been gay" from his argument.
"On top of that, many girls and kids far younger then 16 were abused as well, which he largely ignores."
I don't see him as ignoring it; his point is those are in the minority (certainly a clear minority for girls) compared to the majority boys and older children.
