JAMESTOWN — Let’s pick up where we left off 60 weeks ago when we first considered ultimately successful efforts to save Saints Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Church in Jamestown from closure.

≤ ≤ ≤

The Diocese of Buffalo has tough, unenviable decisions to make in addressing issues that Catholics aren’t alone in facing, such as attendance, finances, and clergy-shortages.

Then there are the claims particularly–though not solely–impacting Catholics. For such claims, New York state government legislatively, temporarily extended the expired statute of limitations.

No one can seriously doubt that facts underlying these claims are tragic.

Nor can one seriously doubt the implications of legislatively extending–however temporarily–expired statutes of limitation: With the passage of time, witnesses and evidence become unavailable, and memories fade. This makes it harder for the accused to defend themselves.

This column raised those points in 2020 when a candidate for the Democrat-presidential nomination was belatedly accused of long-ago sexual assault.

Requiring that claims be brought in a timely manner is a measure of fairness to the accused.

With that, we take up today four hard questions that we–60 weeks ago–left for another day.

≤ ≤ ≤

Question 1: If government starts legislatively extending expired statutes of limitation, where is the stopping point?

The hard answer is that there’s no stopping point. Or at least no principled stopping point. The stopping point turns at least partly on legislators’ preferences, which can descend into whim.

Whim is no principled stopping point.

≤ ≤ ≤

Question 2: Is legislatively extending–however temporarily–expired statutes of limitation constitutional?

That’s a good question for a prosecutor or a criminal-defense lawyer.

One would think there would be a good argument for at least some constitutional boundary around legislatively extending–however temporarily–expired statutes of limitation.

Moreover, no one has to raise every available defense, including a constitutional challenge to legislatively extending expired statutes of limitation. Catholic dioceses and archdioceses are free not to raise this constitutional defense.

If, however, dioceses and archdioceses elect not to raise this defense, then shouldn’t that be a factor weighing against their having parishes help pay damages that might have been avoided by raising this defense?

≤ ≤ ≤

Question 3: If legislatively extending–however temporarily–expired statutes of limitation is constitutional, how does the ensuing tragedy of financially harming longstanding institutions balance against the benefit of compensating plaintiffs for long-ago tragedies over which the plaintiffs–for whatever reasons–didn’t timely file claims?

Therein lies the ultimate question, which you, faithful reader of this column, are well equipped to consider.

Recognizing such harm doesn’t connote condoning what befell the plaintiffs. Rather, it recognizes the competing interest of longstanding institutions that are part of communities’ cultural fabric.

Such institutions include parishes faithfully supported by members bearing no fault for tragedies of long ago.

Is compensating plaintiffs who didn’t timely file claims worth the harm to such parishes and, by extension, such members?

≤ ≤ ≤

Question 4: Would New York state government, beset by the political philosophy dominating Albany, have proceeded as it did if it were primarily hurting a faith-based institution other than–other than, mind you–a (1) traditional (2) Christian church that (3) effectively (4) opposes the state on (5) particular (6) hot-button (7) social issues?

Suppose that what happened long ago in Catholic churches had instead happened in an organization not meeting some combination of these seven factors.

Do you believe New York state government would have, with equal enthusiasm, temporarily extended the statute of limitations?

For anyone inclined to believe that without doubt, there’s a nice bridge in Brooklyn for sale at a good price.

There might even be some nice bridges in Chautauqua County for sale at good prices too.

It takes no overly suspicious genius to ask whether temporarily extending the statute of limitations here was partly an effort to harm particular organizations against which claims would be brought.

≤ ≤ ≤

Dr. Randy Elf won’t take your money for any of those bridges.

(c) 2026 BY RANDY ELF