Except the mods don't preach from a place of moral and ethical superiority, nor do they preach chastity and sexual restraint.
Except mods didn't choose to become mods to gain unfettered, unsupervised contact with potential victims/conquests.
Except that NS didn't engage in an international coverup operation in order to protect the mods, and simply shuffle the deck and send the offending mods to new sub-forums where their reputation was unknown where they could begin again.
It 100% is an institutional problem. These abuses happened not only in Boston, or Philadelphia, or New York, or Wilmington, but everywhere. The church hierarchy decided the survival (economic) of the church was more important than rooting these predators out. They decided that the church's public image was worth more than the lives of children who will struggle with the abuse throughout their entire lives, almost certainly coloring and negatively affecting their intimate relationships forever.
I will say this: this is an unfortunate byproduct of historical attitudes towards homosexuality in part. In the 1950's, it was completely unacceptable socially to be gay. Many people with homosexual feelings were ashamed of them and fought to deny them because to be openly gay meant to be an outcast. Think of the pressure on a young gay man (say 18 years old) to date, to ultimately marry and have children. Maybe he would think about ways that he could be respected and valued, and not have to marry a woman and start a family and not be scrutinized for it. Maybe he was even so disgusted with his desires that he entered the clergy as a legitimate attempt to stifle his feelings. Unfortunately, maybe he wasn't the only guy with this idea. Maybe he found himself in a culture comprised in large part of people like him—both men and women, who were ashamed of their sexuality and perhaps with "good intentions" to live life the "right way".
To be 100% clear, I do not equate pedophilia with homosexuality. I do not at all believe that a gay man or woman is predestined, or more likely to sexually abuse children. It's obvious that heterosexual abuse is waaaay too fucking common.
It's not so hard (even in 1950) for a man to find a woman willing to have sex with him, or vice versa. In 2014, it's not difficult for a man to find a man willing to have sex with him, or even to openly hold his hand or kiss him in public, the same is true for a woman. In 1950, I'd imagine it was a great deal more difficult to find the same thing. And yet...sexual urges are what they are. Is it hard to imagine gay priests having relationships with one another? Is it really that much of a stretch for a sexually frustrated man in his 20's or 30's, or even his 60's constantly surrounded by adolescent, (14-18 year old boys who idolize them) who may even in some cases themselves be gay and attracted to the priest as he's "powerful" and respected to engage in a relationship? Is it hard to believe that man with so much sway, adulation and respect within a community, who is invited to people's homes for dinner, would capitalize on his opportunities? I don't think it is.
As someone who attended catholic churches until highschool, was baptized, had a first communion, and then was confirmed, I am flat out disgusted by the catholic church and think it is obscene that anyone would give their money to catholic churches at this point. You're literally filling their coffers so that they can settle sexual abuse civil suits out of court.
I have distinct memories of interactions with several priests who I now 100% suspect were/are gay. I wasn't abused, nor did I ever feel in danger, but even as a young boy, I had the undeniable and distinct impression that the adult man I was talking to was very, very different than other adult men I knew. If I had known the word effeminate or flamboyant at the age of 10, it would've been a light bulb moment.
End of this novel/rant which is full of wild speculation, my own half-baked ideas, but also built on many kernels of truth.
