We recently were required to attend an “ethics training” that the insurers told us would reduce our insurance costs. (I’m a United Methodist.)
The statement is simply that there are trained lawyers who specialize in bringing suits against churches. That was obvious.
What the insurer basically wanted was to be able to go into court with every pastor and church worker on record as having been officially trained not to violate sexual ethics codes. It seems obvious that they would know better, but having their signature saying they were trained not to do such things greatly reduces the church’s liability.
Where does the liability fall? The pastor, personally? That would be more just, of course, but less lucrative. With a few notorious exceptions, I haven't generally noticed priests and pastors having a great deal of personal wealth.
YEah, One of my last “official” Episcopal things to do was to go for a day long sexual ethics and what-not course. It was clear the Insurer required it as a condition of insuring the Diocese for rates which were affordable.