That's not the definition. You are drawing a conclusion. Your conclusion is that not all gay priests commit the heinous act. Which is observed. However, the definition is not made by choice, but by ones tendency/orientation which encompasses boys by definition. And thus my conclusion stands on the premises/definitions set before you. Not really a valid point you've exhibited, but a defense for the homosexual lifestyle rather than the life of the priesthood. Which is contradictory to defending men to be in the priesthood if they prefer their lifestyle over it. And would, hence, be a good reason they shouldn't be in it in the first place.