I want to see women victims come forth. Make noise.

Now we learn that homosexuals should not be or become Catholic priests. Of course they shouldn't. Practicing homos, that is. But the Church doesn't say that. It just says homos. Now, because it has had to pay out money(and not a little, it seems), it is deeming it proper to treat gays as if they were dirt, not to say shit. Gays are not any dirtier than your corner or neighborhood he-man adulterer-cum-fornicator. It's sheer hypocrisy. Instead of a little sympathy, the Church has decided to brand, label, and discriminate against gays. What about nuns? Has some statement been issued to say lesbians cannot become nuns? What about those leering hetero priests and bishops staring right through the clothing of their young and shapely female parishioners? Who's going to ban the hetero-hunk-future priest from office? The Church can no more predict which gay priests will turn out negative than it can predict which hetero priests will turn out absolutely positive and it knows that. Is there some fancy, large crystal ball put to use in the Vatican? It isn't likely. So, a reactionary position is what the Church opts to take. When an African-American priest or bishop seduces an attractive parishioner, is the Church then going to prohibit the ordination of African-Americans? What if a Jew wants to be a priest? What about a person with epilepsy? And on and on. Part of the real solution is to do away with the vow(or obligation) of celibacy. Have married priests as an option. Another partial solution is to have stints in the priesthood, much as in the military. Let it be common for priests to serve 2, 4 or whatever years then out. Nuns can do likewise. The training, some say. There is too much training anyway, too many years. How many years' training did the apostles have BEFORE they commenced the Lord's work? Not any 6 to 8 years, we can be sure. Some of that lengthy training is hocus-pocus and everybody knows it. Still another step toward finding solutions is to have counseling sessions, say, every 6 months, much like the supervisor's evaluation of the worker in the corporate world. "Have you engaged in or experienced a strong desire to engage in sexual abuse of another person within the past 6 months?" is more or less one of the questions to be asked the priest It is also hypocrisy(which the good Lord hates) when the Church turns its head the other way and allows adulterers to participate in communion. Of course, the rebel participants are upstanding citizens and pillars of the community. They pay A LOT for their sacraments, so what can the Church do or say? The Church now condemns gays yet Christ Himself said He came into the world NOT to condemn but...
As a result of the Church's recent proclamation, I want to see women victims come forth. Make noise. I want to see lawsuits against the Church by female parishioners who were lured/enticed into illicit sexual affairs by testosterone-laden hetero priests and bishops. I personally witnessed a case in Georgia, so I know they exist. They must exist by the hundreds at least. What will the Church say then? It will say starting now neither homos NOR heteros can become future priests! Of course. Last but not least, it's hard for your average layperson to know what the best and lasting solutions to the big problem(molestation) are, but they certainly have to be steps that are better than blatant discrimination disguised as something divine.