His emphasis on stats is offsetting. He attempts to show that abuse is down, without taking into consideration that children either 1) never tell or 2) do not tell until they are adults, most often in their 40s.
He says "only four children were abused in the last year" as if that is a good thing. Not only is it much more than four for reasons given above (based on the research) but four child-victims of priests is four too many. Let's not lose sight of the extensive damage done to a child by being used as a piece of meat by a Catholic priest.
Also, the research on public school teachers is well-docuмented. A child is seven times more likely to be sɛҳuąƖly abused in a public school setting than by a Catholic priest. He egregiously inflates this figure in order to do what? Protect the Church?
Yes, the Church is being attacked by those who hate the Church, but let us not lose sight of the fact that since the 1930s, at least, the Church has been successfully infiltrated by those who hate the Church. (See School of Darkness by Bella Dodd, or see the video of her online.)