Women Molested by Christian Pastor

This story on Sunday World is pretty sickening. Don’t read it if you’re under 18 or sensitive to graphic details of sexual assault.

Holy Man, Paseka Mbhoro Motsoeneng, assaulted two women on stage during a “demon banishing” service in Katlehong on Sunday.

Sitting on the lap of a female congregant, Motsoeneng placed his hand on the head of a 17 year-old teen, who cannot be identified due to her age, and started praying for her.

Motsoeneng told the congregants her tummy had swelled up because some sorcerers had cast an evil spell on her.

As he was praying for her she collapsed. Motsoeneng then told the teenager, who was lying on her back, to open her legs, which she did.

He then plunged his fingers into her private parts and started moving his fingers inside her vagina.

As he was busy with his “healing process”, Motsoeneng ordered her to call him by his nickname, Mboro.

“Say Mboro,” he ordered her.

“Mboro” she said, with a stifled cry.

I’m going to hazard a guess and say that her mother and father were in the congregation or, at the very least, an adult or friends who cared for her and would want to see her protected. Why did no-one of them take a length of wood and beat it around this abuser’s head? Why did no-one even stand up and shout, “leave that girl alone, you monster” or try to intervene? It is because he is a pastor and is in a position of power. This is a well known phenomena studied in depth by Stanley Milgram. Mboro has been given power over people by virtue of his position as a pastor. He abused this power for some sick and twisted reason that I’m quite thankful that I don’t understand.

Yet Mboro isn’t a doctor or a policeman. He’s a pastor. Why should a pastor have any kind of authority at all? The dubious beliefs of theists grant power to them. They accept, for some reason, that they need someone to look out for their “spiritual” welfare. They leave themselves open to exploitation. It isn’t fair to blame them for this. They’ve been scammed. They are the victims.

Sickeningly Mboro moved on to a second victim.

The young woman, who was not asked to identify herself, was told to tell the packed hall what her problem was.

“I haven’t slept with my husband for some time because it hurts when we make love.

“Every time he penetrates me, it feels like he is cutting me with a sharp knife,” she said.

Mboro took off his shoes and placed his foot on her vagina.

“There’s something breathing in her biscuit. It feels like a heartbeat,” he said.

He later ordered the woman to take off her undies. She complied. He said he wanted to “stitch it with his holy water”.

Motsoeneng sprinkled water on his right hand and rubbed the woman’s genitals.
He ordered her to call her husband “with all the nice words in the book of love and tell him she would discharge her conjugal rights”.

Yep, her husband was there in the crowd. He watched as his wife was sexually assaulted. It sounds like he was even grateful to Mboro for “fixing” the missus.

Sick isn’t it. Such is the power of religion. When it is coupled with an abuser or unrestrained power it is really a monstrous thing.

(Source FriendlyAtheist.com)

Advertisements

15 Comments

Filed under Bad things happen

15 responses to “Women Molested by Christian Pastor

  1. M

    I guess there’s a question of whether there is a belief by the pastor that “he is actually doing god’s work and his magic love fingers really do heal” — I mean, many faith healers (and I’m not talking fake surgery healer people) do the whole “hand-on-head – you are healed my son” thing; which to me strikes me as a pretty lame way of going about it. At least “contact” with the affected areas makes sense that it would go some way torwards “healing”. Although, whether the pastor gets “any pleasure” from his “healing” or not, abuse is abuse isn’t it? If I was to believe the cure for a headache was to lop someone’s head off — it would still be murder regardless of my intentions… unless, maybe if I were a Pastor… -ponders-

    • I don’t think that it matters what he is thinking. People don’t have a “get out of jail free” card because they’re delusional and they don’t get to claim that they are delusional in order to do horrible things. We judge morals on people’s actions, not on their thoughts. We don’t have a choice in this because we don’t have access to their thoughts and we have to assume that act on their own volition unless presented with evidence to the contrary.

      Mboro’s actions are horrible and I believe that they were enabled only because of the deference afforded to men of faith. A woman (or a man for that matter) might well accept a medical doctor probing round in her innards (assuming she wasn’t there for a sore throat). You might well trust a fireman but having him slip on the rubber gloves is a step too far. Why should someone who is supposed to look after your “spirit” (whatever that is) even touch you? Only his status as a man of the cloth allows this but where does his status come from? His own bogus claims and the community’s willingness to accept them.

      • M

        actually there are lots of legal defences relating to “delusional” behaviour; but I get your point. (and I’ve been reading the other comments — quite a debate!)

        I think that the key is “his claims” and “the community’s willingness to accept them.” Where faith is involved, people (historically) have a little understanding of how it all works — “so you have like a direct line to the big man upstairs? What’s it like up there?” — and it is easy to sit back and ignore things; assuming it all forms part of the bigger picture.

        I guess with religion being paired with magic in the eyes of many; miracles ? Only instead of a “That’s just sleight of hand,” reaction; we have oohs and woos from the crowd. Well… assuming the crowd doesn’t want to persecute the miracle do-er for being a witch or something… But I’m digressing. There is an assumption that someone who is “closer to god” is special in a way which makes them more than ourselves – even if, the only difference is that they’ve subjected themselves to years of religious indoctrination and wear slightly odd clothes (compared to the rest of us).

        Like magic – we want to believe. So, I guess in this case, the community wants to believe that his acts are those of god through his fingers (I wonder if anyone _has_ actually been cured by his work; while it wouldn’t take away any of the abusiveness of the nature of it — it would at least say “well, he actually did some good” (even if, by its very nature, the majority of “faith heals” are self inflicted by ourselves believing us to be better (or whatever the technical term is)))

        But really; people – historically – have left religious people get away with murder; it’s that direct line to god thing. It’s like how they assume people who have something good about them, have to have some eccentric quirk, or something odd that they don’t understand; even if it is repulsive — they turn a blind eye because, well, for all they know – that is what they have to do to talk to god (although – if that actually is their logic, I would find myself wondering about the sort of ‘god’ that sit’s up there going “okay my priests – have a fiddle”…)

  2. I read this when you posted it and I did actually feel sick. I cannot countenance it at all. The pastor and “man of god” is getting away with these actions in the same way that catholic priests got away with abuse for years: fear, power, lies, charm, to name but a few.

    What strikes me as very sinister about many of these people is that they are very able to target their victims: the poor, the needy, the frightened, the uneducated, the vulnerable and, perhaps most importantly, the unquestioning believer. It’s doubtful that this pastor would have tried to do the same to a college graduate well known for her cynicism and worldly ways. No, he could get away with it with this victim, and he knew it. Women and the young, at least historically, are particularly vulnerable to such abuse and are ready targets. As soon as you start to invoke the DEVIL and FINAL DAMNATION you can do what you like. There are stories of priests in Ireland telling me that they could rid their wives of demons and villainy if they were granted full carnal knowledge. And they were. There’s nothing more frightening that that devil himself.

    • We’ve all heard the many stories of Catholic Priests abusing children. In many cases the community was aware that the priest was doing something wrong but did nothing. This isn’t in Africa where the standard and quality of education could be expected to be poor but in Northern Ireland and North America. Humans in Africa aren’t more susceptible to authority figures than humans in Northern Ireland and the same factors are at work. An abuser like Mboro exists in a nice Catholic church, a Jewish synagogue or a quiet Hindu chapel. Thankfully rarely..

      It is the privilege granted to the institution that enables abusers to prosper. They are given the tools (the evil of Satan, authority of Scripture, a position as a representative of the Almighty) that allow them to do what they want. For Catholics a vow of chastity is thrown in that prevents them from venting their sexual desires into a “normal” relationship. Furthermore there are reports that abuse is rife throughout Catholic seminaries so they start their careers with a skewed attitude to sex and women.

      • Just to follow up on one thing: For Catholics a vow of chastity is thrown in that prevents them from venting their sexual desires into a “normal” relationship.

        I think that’s a dangerous argument. It implies that if priests were allowed to have a sexual relationship with A.N.Other consenting adult, they wouldn’t abuse children or women because sex within a [presumably] healthy, adult relationship would lower the likelihood of rape and sexual abuse as it would offer an outlet for sexual desire. But rape and sexual assault are not about sexual desire so that’s not the case at all.

        That argument runs the risk of excusing perpetrators for this actions – oh, well, if they’d been getting some somewhere else, they wouldn’t have raped etc. No, rape is an act of violence that has nothing to do with one’s sex life.

  3. It implies that if priests were allowed to have a sexual relationship with A.N.Other consenting adult, they wouldn’t abuse children or women because sex within a [presumably] healthy, adult relationship would lower the likelihood of rape and sexual abuse as it would offer an outlet for sexual desire. But rape and sexual assault are not about sexual desire so that’s not the case at all.

    I think that this is a simplification and I obviously didn’t explain it well. In a way though I do think that there is a valid argument here. Catholic Priests have something like three times the number of child molesters in their midst compared to men outside of the religion. Anglicans have more or less the same duties and responsibilities and similar training but are permitted to marry. They don’t suffer from the same deviancy (and I’m not using that word lightly).

    Now I’m not necessarily saying that just because the Catholic Priest can’t get laid once in a while he turns to raping children. What I’m suggesting is that a culture of repressing sexual feelings, demonising women, demonising sex, permitting abuse by “forgiving sin” rather than dealing with crimes and a whole host of other factors contribute to both attracting a certain kind of deviancy in initiates of the priesthood and enabling those who may otherwise have been able to suppress or channel their deviancy into less harmful pursuits.

    No, rape is an act of violence that has nothing to do with one’s sex life.

    I disagree. While rape can certainly be an act of violence and power, typically against women, I think that to disconnect it from sex is to ignore a powerful motivator for rapists. I think that for some it is an act that misdirects what we would consider to be healthy sexual feelings into an assault where the feelings, indeed the whole personhood, of the victim are ignored or discounted. “Normal” sex is, in many ways, about sharing. It is about giving and receiving pleasure and forming a close emotional and physical connection. For an abuser the giving of pleasure is irrelevant or somehow assumed to tie in with the act of rape.

    If I were to hazard a guess with Mboro I would say that his pleasure came from the dominance and control he had over these women and the many witnesses. I’d be surprised if this is the limit of his abuse and would expect a string of victims behind him and in front of him unless he is stopped. In many ways he fits into the model of a man who abuses as an act of violence rather than pleasure. I do not believe that this model fits all abusers though.

    Unfortunately the normal reaction to rape is to consider the rapist to be a monster. Some must be acting out their own abuse in some way and, as such, could be considered victims themselves. By labelling them as monsters they lose all chance at rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is what we should hope for among those who commit crimes and break the social conventions that we expect and the basic human societal rules that we assume are active.

    • This argument is bordering very closely on rape apology – victims themselves, they can’t help it really, if only they’d be allowed a healthy channel through which to express their desires …

      These sorts of arguments are all used as justifications for rape and as ways to excuse perpetrators for their actions (and, often, to blame rape victims), and are not terribly far removed from, “Well, she was drunk and wearing a short skirt, you know”.

      Rehabilitation is a completely separate concept and is not about finding excuses for actions.

      • I think that the point where any such justifications (and I really don’t want to call them that) fail is when the rapist rapes someone or sexually assaults someone. The old saying about free speech applies “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” – attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. A person may have feelings and desires that we would consider inappropriate and they may well be victims acting out their own abuse but our sympathy has to end when they cause harm themselves.

  4. Um, I didn’t read that from your previous comment when you said that, “Unfortunately the normal reaction to rape is to consider the rapist to be a monster. Some must be acting out their own abuse in some way and, as such, could be considered victims themselves.”

    That IS making excuses for rapists, justifying their actions (even if the term isn’t comfortable to you), and removing their culpability.

    And you are still equating rape with sexual desire. Desire, yes, is incredibly varied and not always in keeping with what society thinks is acceptable (which is a whole other debate). Rape is about power, control, pain, and violence. Saying that a rapist rapes because of “inappropriate feelings and desires” is as good as saying, “She was wearing a short skirt, I was horny, I couldn’t help myself. I desired her”. No you didn’t; you raped her.

    • Well I’m not making excuses for rapists. I’m sorry if it seems that way and I unreservedly retract anything that supports that view. It doesn’t matter if the woman was wearing a short skirt or is totally naked, it is about the rapist’s actions. To my mind it doesn’t matter what the rapist’s thoughts or desires are except as a way to understand what motivates them.

  5. There is an assumption that someone who is “closer to god” is special in a way which makes them more than ourselves

    I think that this is exactly it. Last year we had people in this country queuing up to see the Bishop of Rome as if he were something other than a curious anachronism (like our Royal Family). Why? It wasn’t because he won the tallest hat competition. No, he is “holy” and that means that what he says is “holy” too.

    Like magic – we want to believe. So, I guess in this case, the community wants to believe that his acts are those of god through his fingers

    Ew, holy magic fingers. Well we already know what the deity of the Abrahamic religions has to say about women (he was quite happy to forcibly impregnate Mary for example) so maybe that’s where his abuse stems from.

  6. (blimey, nothing for 26 months and then there’s a bunch of posts in my reader. Anyway…)

    This is deeply disturbing. We know that some people have absolute faith in members of the clergy. What’s the best way to combat this? Educate the people or eliminate members of the clergy?

    • It was Easter. I felt like resurrecting the old blog..

      The best way to combat it? Education. If people have options they may still choose religion but at least their choice will be an informed one.

  7. eddie bauer

    Is it by chance that his nickname “mboro” means “penis” in shona ( zimbabwe main language )? I wouldn’t doubt if you’d say he is a satanist!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s