I couldn't say one way or the other as the sentence is too vague to be taken seriously. I thought it was comical and posted it as the church is historically known for centuries to be plagued with homosexual pedophilia.
Thinking about it now, I would say "No." because, this is just a zinger that has a very lose foundation for a theory from the perspective of a psychologist. If that theory were true, there would need to be more to substantiate it. I would say that abstinence is not a requirement for pedophilia in the church. I would go on to say that if I had a theory, it'd be the opposite of what you suggest.
HOWEVER - there is a trauma triangle where abuse victims will cope with their abuse by exhibiting one of three aspects. Do understand that this is not always the case and each case is different. So, while it does support your theory in some respect, it's not absolution. The victim is one who continues to seek others who will repeat the abuse where the child had their control taken from them. The Rescuer - the child who seeks to find others sharing the plight they had as a child and will seek to give control back to others where they had none. Finally, the abuser. In this, the child will replicate the abuse placed on them by their abuser as a move to take control back by stealing it from another.
So, now we have a model that supports your theory, but this begs the question "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Who started the chain of abuse? Or was it always there? There is also genetic predispositions to be concerned about. My theory is that most likely in one instance, a chain was started that had a genetic mental illness that made them prone to this behavior. Their actions can start a chain where the behavior is repeated.
Homosexuals, while bombarded with hate and persecution, are often suffering from one or more mental illnesses. Some are fortunate not to suffer from depression or PTSD or things like that. If they are not suffering from mental illness, does that mean that their sexual preference is taught? Or it was always there? Then of course the question that follows, how can you persecute one for being homosexual if they were straight to start?
In hindsight, I should've added the humor tag. I've been growing tired of using tags as no one seems to pay attention to them.
Does that sufficiently answer your question?
