The argument is purely in demonstrating an obvious difference between teleiophiles (i.e., normal people) and paedophiles. Any attempt to conclude something broader than that would be a mistake.

I also wonder if priests being common offenders is driven by celibacy and unavailability of any sexual outlet.

It's a good question, and one that's frequently raised. I dunno if it's actually supported by evidence though. Do priests actually commit child sexual abuse at a higher rate than other jobs with positions of authority over children? Not a rhetorical question: I don't know the answer, and I think it would be a very important data point in helping answer the question you raised. I've always viewed the biggest problem with priests being their proclivity for protecting each other's abuses, and the highly systemic manner in which those abuses and cover-ups have sometimes taken place. It's a stark contrast from, say, teachers, where it does happen, but any time it's caught the punishment is far more severe.

It's an area that would be worthy of research, though I have no idea how you would conduct that research. I've heard that claim before, but I've also heard the claim that it could actually make them more likely to offend, because it actually doesn't (these people allege) act as an "outlet" in the way I described before, but instead actually acts to normalise it for them. Which is true? I have no idea. That's the research that would be needed.