"It could cost the church [sic] some money."

Bishop Gumbleton has spoken.  Assuming arguendo that what His Excellency reports about what happened to him is true, we all have reason to be grateful that, through grace, he overcame the harm and went on to do so much good.  This is a very serious matter, obviously.  Am I wrong, then, in thinking that "It could cost the church some money" is not something a successor to the apostles should say in the context of advocating an expansion of civil statutes of limitations for abuse claims?  "The church" will pay.  It's not His Excellency's parish that may be closed and then sold to pay the price of the episcopal negligence, etc.  Where will the Masses be celebrated and the confessions heard, Your Excellency?  I don't doubt that the litigation bills are raising episcopal consciousness; I do doubt and even deny that it's good for the Church for a bishop (publicly) to translate the shrinkage of parish life into terms that would satisfy Justice Holmes.