Critics and some survivor advocacy groups have expressed skepticism regarding the current reparations program, warning that it may be too limited to achieve true justice. A primary concern is the narrow scope of the agreement, which focuses heavily on cases where the perpetrator is deceased or the crime is legally expired. Skeptics argue that this approach risks shielding the institution from broader accountability, as it avoids addressing active cases or systemic failures that may still exist within the Church hierarchy today.
There is also significant concern regarding the pace of the process. With hundreds of files still pending and reports of delays, some survivors fear that the bureaucratic nature of the review could lead to further revictimization. Critics point out that the burden of proof and the strict criteria for admission can be daunting for those who have already spent years struggling to be heard. They argue that the process should be more expansive and accessible, rather than forcing victims to fit into a rigid administrative box that may not account for the nuances of their individual experiences.
Finally, there is a lingering distrust regarding the Church's level of cooperation. While the current protocol is a step forward, critics note that the Church has historically been opaque regarding its internal archives and the protection of abusers. Without full transparency and a commitment to structural reform, some fear that these reparations are merely a way to manage the public relations fallout of the scandal rather than a genuine effort to change the culture that allowed the abuse to happen in the first place.