Ritröð Guðfræðistofnunar - 01.09.2011, Page 12

Traditionally, this story has focused on blaming Bathsheba for sexually
tempting David when in fact she is the victim here, as was her husband. But
what is clear in Nathan’s confrontation of David is that this story isn’t about
sex; rather it is about power and vulnerability. Nathan uses an economic
metaphor to illustrate the ethical issue which ultimately focuses on theft as
the moral violation. Bathsheba and her husband were robbed of each other
and their life together because David took what he wanted. David could
do that because he was the king.
The second passage comes from the prophet Ezekiel in Chapter 34.
Ezekiel also uses the metaphor of sheep to describe an abusive relationship
between sheep and shepherd. It is a warning to „the shepherds of Israel“
who „have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep?“
(v. 2) He uses this image to critique the harsh and abusive treatment of
the sheep by the shepherds. Then God says that God will take the sheep
away from these shepherds and will become the Shepherd for the sheep,
will protect them, strengthen them, and feed them with justice. (v. 16) The
relationship between the shepherd and the sheep has a fiduciary dimension
which parallels Hippocrates’ principle. The shepherd has greater power and
an obligation to act in the best interests of the vulnerable sheep. Ironically,
the final response to the problem is that God appoints David as their shep-
herd to feed and protect the sheep. (v. 23-24)
The problem of the misuse of power and the violation of sexual bound-
aries by leaders, including clergy, is nothing new. These examples suggest
that the discussion of this fact of life is also not new. The contemporary
disclosure of sexual abuse by clergy by victims and survivors is new.
A Study in the Failure of Religious Institutions
The powerful exploiting the vulnerable is a long-standing and tragic part of
human history. It is a thread woven throughout the historical record. The
shortsighted, default position of most institutions is to enforce silence and
secrecy in the face of disclosures of abuse in an effort to protect abusers,
avoid consequences and minimize „scandal“. The real scandal here is the
profound contradiction between this institutional response to harm carried
out by representatives of the church and the values, teachings and precepts
of the church itself. The result is a list of thousands of people abused
by someone they were taught to trust. If this were any other institution,
the contradiction would not be so profound. But this is the church —
10