Catholic priests are the only people who would receive any social or legal sanction for having had sex with teenage boys. For example, imagine that such a stricture were to be applied to the Anglo-American prestige media. It would be as ruinous as an enforcement of the law against cocaine would be. That is why there will never be either.
If Peter Tatchell had his way, and the age of consent were lowered to 14, then almost every act to which today's report refers, or to which this sort of thing ever does refer, would be perfectly legal, at least unless coercion were proved, which is a notoriously difficult thing to do. Such activity has been depicted positively in the mass entertainment media for at least 21 years and counting.
Theodore McCarrick's alleged victim was 16. At least today, he would have committed no offence in the United Kingdom. Catholic priests who have offended in this regard have violated the Teaching of the Church, they have violated their own vows, and they have violated the Code of Canon Law, which establishes a specific offence of sexual activity with anyone under the age of 18, regardless of any lower age of consent in any civil jurisdiction. It is perfectly obvious who has the moral high ground here.
Meanwhile, let the highly politicised cottage industry around these things know that false allegations that were then withdrawn under cross-examination were bad for credibility, and that claims of sickness to secure adjournments will eventually require the production of medical evidence in open court. Another Crown Court trial? I have not relished anything so much in a very long time.