Perhaps if you had taken the trouble to read the post carefully you wouldn't have shot from the hip and got it all wrong. 
I wrote, "However, the vast majority of cases of 'child-abuse' were homosexual encounters (between priests and pubertal and post-pubertal teenage boys). This means that homosexually inclined priests are more likely to abuse children." No way can this be construed as equating paedophilia with homosexuality. The vast majority of abuse by priests involved pubertal and post pubertal boys which is not paedophilia. It is more commonly known as hebophilia and ephebophilia; note that I am talking about priests not the general public.
In fact, I also wrote, "This is not the same as saying that in general, homosexuals are more likely to be child abusers."  Which means exactly what it says, homosexuals generally are NOT necessarily more likely to be child abusers.
Your accusation as usual is again absolutely false.