A follow-up post to this:
Among other things, pastors have a duty to protect the flock. That's not a question of forgiveness, but wisdom. A prudential question.
In risk-assessment you have paired factors:
i) What are the odds that x will happen?
ii) What's the harm if x happens?
Take this anecdote:
He became even more of a distraction when he produced equations that showed the possibility that a fission weapon could ignite the world's atmosphere. It was later discovered his calculations were wrong -- and a dozen other men made similar mistakes later -- but work stopped until the flaw was found.
Suppose there'd been a tiny risk of that eventuality? Even so, if global annihilation had been a live possibility, that's an unacceptable risk, even if the chances are very low.
i) What's the risk of doing x?
ii) What's the risk of not doing x?
Take vaccination. That carries a low risk of harm. But it's generally riskier not to vaccinate. As a rule, not to vaccinate does more harm. The benefit outweighs the risk.