Posted: Apr 11, 2014 9:04 pm
The article says
but I find that a bit hard to believe. Does he, instead, want to insure the church against being liable for sexual abuse committed by some of its employees? That I would understand, and I can't see anything wrong with it. Why shouldn't an insurance company chip in to cover the damages, if it has received premiums for being willing to do that?
George Pell wants to insure priests against being sued for child sexual abuse.
but I find that a bit hard to believe. Does he, instead, want to insure the church against being liable for sexual abuse committed by some of its employees? That I would understand, and I can't see anything wrong with it. Why shouldn't an insurance company chip in to cover the damages, if it has received premiums for being willing to do that?