Thomas Roberts on CNN: did we miss something?

If you caught the interview with CNN reporter Thomas Roberts last night on Anderson Cooper 360, you might be scratching your head a bit. While it was unquestionably courageous for the man to speak so candidly about his sexual abuse at the hand of the family priest as a teenager, there seemed to be a glaring absence in the discussion: namely, about how Roberts, as an out gay man, has been affected by the abuse as a grown, sexualized adult.

The piece gave a detailed history of Roberts' abuse, about which he was unable to speak for years, even going so far as to attempt suicide at one point while in high school. Roberts was not ready to accuse the priest until he read that another man, Michael Goles, had come forward to make the same accusations. Due to archaic Maryland law and the apparent influence of the Roman Catholic Church in the lawmaking process, Goles and Roberts were forced to combine forces in order to get anything done about the perpetrator. Even then, the outcome was far from sufficient, and their efforts to change the laws in order to protect abuse victims continue.

I understand that the focus of the piece ultimately was on getting something done about these laws. But the fact that Roberts is an openly gay man and was the victim of an ongoing sexual assault by another man (and the fact that the other victim, Goles, is also gay) can very easily lead to a cause-effect conclusion in the minds of viewers (i.e., if you are molested by a priest, you will be gay; if you are a gay adult, it is likely because your sexual development was interrupted by same-sex abuse). This interview would have been a fantastic opportunity to address these misconceptions (which are already rampant) and put them to rest.

As it was, we didn't see Roberts as a fully sexualized person -- he was shown alone (or with his dog) the entire interview, and no mention was ever made of any kinds of relationships as an adult. Goles' sexuality was discussed, as was the effect of the abuse on his subsequent relationships and behavior, which included drug addiction, alcohol abuse, and general disaffection. Given that Roberts was the subject of the hourlong piece, how could his adult relationships (romantically or as a member of the gay community -- or any community, for that matter) not even have been mentioned?

What do you think? Was CNN taking the high road by not associating Roberts' abuse with his sexuality at all, or did they miss an opportunity and encourage speculation by omitting the information entirely?