>>809935
Much of the abuses in the Catholic Church were exposed due to lawsuits. The Church has deep pockets, which motivates the suits (not that this means the plaintiffs are just after money, but most would not bother with emotionally and financially draining lawsuits otherwise). But insurance agencies don't report higher rates of abuse by Catholic clergy: Of course the Catholic Church is the largest and would therefore have the largest number of cases, so it would look to the casual observer like a pattern. This helped feed the journalistic frenzy (and public ignorance) around the issue. An independent review showed about 3% of priests in a fifty year period had been accused of "sexual misconduct". Based on insurance company reports, the Protestant figure is likely somewhat higher. Orthodox and Hasidic Jews have been implicated in hushing up their own sexual abuse problems. Secular institutions have also shown patterns of abuse–famously, Penn State, where there was no gay mafia keeping the information secret. Schools have experienced problems with teacher-student impropriety, including of course married teachers. The Boy Scouts, which have tried to keep gays out of the organization, have also had problems. Gays themselves don't monopolize molestation, and a large percentage of child sexual abuse cases involve heterosexuals and/or indeterminate orientation–i.e. someone with access to children who is indifferent as to which sex he molests. You see sexual abuse where there is access, and abusers pursue positions where they will have access. Generally, child abusers don't rely on environments where they know everyone around will back them up–they manipulate and abuse their victims in secret and pressure them to remain silent. Setting aside all that, it is very weak to decide the Church should abandon a tradition of many centuries that it considers significant due to a few headlines and your supposition that married priests would be swell. It's a sign of the times.