The whole article strikes me as a manipulative and pre-emptive defence against accusation - he's admitting 'something' in a way that allows him to set and control the narrative. His comments - 'I never acted on it/then maybe I did things I shouldn't have/but never penetrated' are a complete reversal of his claims of non offending: he basically admits he 'did things he shouldn't have' and dives in to defend himself against one very specific accusation, that I doubt has been asked directly by the paper but it seems odd as a self proclaimed non offender he would want to dwell on this particular aspect in an interview.
Then there's the question of his choices over the years eg teaching, foster care that have brought him into close contact with children: and the fact his wife was unaware of his impulses at the time of having children and fostering with him. A late damascene conversion that he's now ready to be honest and reveal his true nature as a non offending paedophile, following a rape accusation dismissed as coincidental 'false memories' is amazingly convenient timing - almost as though he wants to get his account out there first. Also the phrase 'out and proud' as an attempt to ape or echo the position of other marginalised groups in expressing their sexuality as something natural or reasonable. (there cannot be a comparison between consensual homosexual relationships between adults and a coercive/exploitational relationship between an adult and a child below the age of maturity or consent)
Not buying any of it - reads like pure manipulation by an abuser seeking to frame himself in some sort of victim/minority role while gaining plaudits for his 'honesty' and 'bravery'