While I was reading the article several jokes came to mind. But then I read that most of the women were intimidated by him and scared of coming forward because they felt he would make life hell for them. Which also suggests he might have forced himself on them. So it seems like this guy isn't a 'playa'. He's just an abusive piece of shit.
"Do what I say, or burn forever in hell." or the Eastern religion version: "If you don't do what I say, you'll never know the wonder, glory, and interconnectedness of hte universe" (double negatives, but same abuse)
That's abuse. Textbook abuse. That's what they tell small children, against the wishes of their parents. That's how religions have always worked.
āReligions are abuseā is a bit more abstract than āthis guy used his position of power to sexually harass, maybe even rape women he had authority overā.
Not that I disagree, itās just I havenāt looked at all religions.
Guarantee you the Catholic Church knew he was a problem and is only acting now because itād cost too much to protect him further.
Also, Iād be willing to bet this asshole would have been a problem anywhere.
I would argue there is definitely a difference between "do what I say or suffer" and "do what I say and you'll have a better go of things." The latter sounds more like advice than abuse.
Oh no worries, eastern religion need no double negative to be as shite as Christianity in regard of power imbalance and it's abuse.
I learned a while ago that Buddhism does have a hell as well, not permanent like in Christianity, but a hell nonetheless. And you know who is there and gets extra punished? Unbeliever! How convenient for the priests who get donations and can wield power from the believe the people place in them.
And recently I learned about, I think it was Hinduism or another Indian religion, that people needed to offer sacrifices to the temples in order to shorten the burden their recently deceased loved ones would need to endure. And it was explicitly stated in the museum that poorer people who couldn't sacrifice much or anything were directly told they are responsible for their loved ones prolonged suffering.
So don't feel bad about lumping all big religions together. I haven't yet seen a big one, that isn't shite and more about concentration of power instead of helping the people.
Ugaz said Quispe made the mistake of sending some videos and photos he intended for mistresses to his cleaning lady, who promptly complained to the Catholic Church. Mancado said the cleaning lady had seen womenās hair in the bishopās shower. He reported her saying: āHis sheets had stains. I had to clean all of that up.āĀ
The bishop has denied the allegations, calling them a defamation campaign by ādark handsā.
I've always figured some were attracted to the clergy because they weren't comfortable with whatever sexuality they were stuck with. Pedophiles, homosexuals, horn dogs, any sexual feelings the Church deems sinful. They're thinking if they join up, they can get away from these evil temptations. But they underestimate the power of human sexuality. Excepting the true asexuals, we're pretty much all-in on fucking, no matter the risk.
OTOH, maybe I'm exceptionally horny. Having had over 50 lovers doesn't make me a man slut, does it?
Other Christian groups are fine with marriage, it's only the Catholic clergy who strictly practice celibacy, hard as it may for them. Catholic priests used to be allowed to get married but somewhere down the line, the properties that Catholic priests accumulated are passed on to their families, and the Vatican is having none of it. There is a theological reasoning to back up their celibate policy, but we all know it's a convenient excuse for the church to keep properties for themselves.
Depends on your age. If you're 95, almost but not quite. Though some may still theorize it counts.
If you're 25, yes.
But either way, you do you. As long as no harm's done, nothing wrong with being one (do make sure you check yourself for STDs though - accidents happen).
All priests are creepy sex weirdos, probably raping children. OR they're obvious grifters, trying to get every single cent out of their followers, OR they're true believers, spreading religious hate and terror in the form of their radicalized religious terrroist followers.
That's it. It's one of those 3.
Do they lie and say that they're someone else? Yeah, yeah they do that a lot.
33 Comments
ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world · 97 pts · 341d
While I was reading the article several jokes came to mind. But then I read that most of the women were intimidated by him and scared of coming forward because they felt he would make life hell for them. Which also suggests he might have forced himself on them. So it seems like this guy isn't a 'playa'. He's just an abusive piece of shit.
dantheclamman@lemmy.world · 36 pts · 341d
But the cleaning lady had some guts!
otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 339d
So... A religious leader, then? š¤·š¼āāļø
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world · 79 pts · 341d
So āsomeā of the āmistressesā were too scared to come forward because he would threaten him.
Sounds like maybe they werenāt willingly his mistresses.
DreamAccountant@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 341d
All religions are an abusive relationship.
"Do what I say, or burn forever in hell." or the Eastern religion version: "If you don't do what I say, you'll never know the wonder, glory, and interconnectedness of hte universe" (double negatives, but same abuse)
That's abuse. Textbook abuse. That's what they tell small children, against the wishes of their parents. That's how religions have always worked.
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 341d
āReligions are abuseā is a bit more abstract than āthis guy used his position of power to sexually harass, maybe even rape women he had authority overā.
Not that I disagree, itās just I havenāt looked at all religions.
Guarantee you the Catholic Church knew he was a problem and is only acting now because itād cost too much to protect him further.
Also, Iād be willing to bet this asshole would have been a problem anywhere.
PoastRotato@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 341d
I would argue there is definitely a difference between "do what I say or suffer" and "do what I say and you'll have a better go of things." The latter sounds more like advice than abuse.
SkyezOpen@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 339d
The deciding factor is what the answer is to "and what if I don't?"
Wrufieotnak@feddit.org · -1 pts · 340d
Oh no worries, eastern religion need no double negative to be as shite as Christianity in regard of power imbalance and it's abuse.
I learned a while ago that Buddhism does have a hell as well, not permanent like in Christianity, but a hell nonetheless. And you know who is there and gets extra punished? Unbeliever! How convenient for the priests who get donations and can wield power from the believe the people place in them.
And recently I learned about, I think it was Hinduism or another Indian religion, that people needed to offer sacrifices to the temples in order to shorten the burden their recently deceased loved ones would need to endure. And it was explicitly stated in the museum that poorer people who couldn't sacrifice much or anything were directly told they are responsible for their loved ones prolonged suffering.
So don't feel bad about lumping all big religions together. I haven't yet seen a big one, that isn't shite and more about concentration of power instead of helping the people.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 341d
lol
shalafi@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 341d
I've always figured some were attracted to the clergy because they weren't comfortable with whatever sexuality they were stuck with. Pedophiles, homosexuals, horn dogs, any sexual feelings the Church deems sinful. They're thinking if they join up, they can get away from these evil temptations. But they underestimate the power of human sexuality. Excepting the true asexuals, we're pretty much all-in on fucking, no matter the risk.
OTOH, maybe I'm exceptionally horny. Having had over 50 lovers doesn't make me a man slut, does it?
axexrx@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 341d
Consecutively or simultaneously?
shalafi@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 341d
Simultaneously! Life is short. Take big bites.
TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 340d
Other Christian groups are fine with marriage, it's only the Catholic clergy who strictly practice celibacy, hard as it may for them. Catholic priests used to be allowed to get married but somewhere down the line, the properties that Catholic priests accumulated are passed on to their families, and the Vatican is having none of it. There is a theological reasoning to back up their celibate policy, but we all know it's a convenient excuse for the church to keep properties for themselves.
Lumisal@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 339d
Depends on your age. If you're 95, almost but not quite. Though some may still theorize it counts.
If you're 25, yes.
But either way, you do you. As long as no harm's done, nothing wrong with being one (do make sure you check yourself for STDs though - accidents happen).
heyWhatsay@slrpnk.net · 12 pts · 340d
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 339d
probably conseula.
DreamAccountant@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 341d
All priests are creepy sex weirdos, probably raping children. OR they're obvious grifters, trying to get every single cent out of their followers, OR they're true believers, spreading religious hate and terror in the form of their radicalized religious terrroist followers.
That's it. It's one of those 3.
Do they lie and say that they're someone else? Yeah, yeah they do that a lot.
quick_snail@feddit.nl · 3 pts · 340d
It's not creepy to have a lot of consensual sex
DragonOracleIX@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 340d
āMany of the 17 women were too scared to come forward because they were frightened of him.ā
That sounds kind of creepy to me.
Zorque@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 341d
Yeah, that's not a radical belief analogous to what you claim to hate at all.
_cryptagion@anarchist.nexus · 1 pts · 341d
quick_snail@feddit.nl · 8 pts · 340d
Nice
AntiBullyRanger@ani.social · 7 pts · 340d
Only 17?
Weak stuff for a Vatican.
ray@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 340d
Only 17 that the cleaning lady knew about.
AntiBullyRanger@ani.social · -4 pts · 340d
::: spoiler pssst Iām darkly humorizing Ć¾Ī¹s.
Iām extremely aware how Ć¾ Vatican cults sexually exploit members. Iām willing to bet Ć¾is BiČopā had already blackmailed his entire ƧurƧ. :::
peoplebeproblems@midwest.social · 7 pts · 341d
Well
I had one for a while
Blumpkinhead@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 340d
A Peruvian cleaning lady?
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 340d
That's because you haven't become a bishop like your mom wanted you to
trum_pam_pam@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 339d
Good thing no kids were involved
smeenz@lemmy.nz · 5 pts · 340d
Paywalled after the first line. Also, why does this bishop have a thing for women who have been exposed by a cleaning lady ?
otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 339d
Historically, those seem like some rookie numbers, NGL...
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 339d
for a bishop its probably alot.
otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 339d
History has a different view...