Vatican City, Jul 30, 2018 / 05:00 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Pope Francis accepted Monday the resignation of Archbishop Philip Wilson following calls for the prelate’s removal as head of the Archdiocese of Adelaide. Wilson was convicted in May of failing to report allegations of child sexual abuse disclosed to him in the 1970s.
A July 30 announcement from the Vatican stated that Archbishop Wilson had submitted his “resignation of the pastoral government of the archdiocese” and that it had been accepted by Pope Francis.
The resignation followed cries from political and Church leaders in Australia for Wilson to either resign or to be removed by Pope Francis, including from prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, who asked the pope to dismiss the archbishop July 19.
Archbishop Mark Coleridge of Brisbane, president of the Australian bishops’ conference, also said that “a number of survivors, prominent Australians and other members of the community have publicly called on Archbishop Wilson to resign.”
“Although we have no authority to compel him to do so, a number of Australian bishops have also offered their advice privately,” he said, adding that “only the Pope can compel a bishop to resign.”
In a statement on his resignation July 30, Wilson said he submitted his resignation letter to Pope Francis July 20.
He was not requested to do so by the Vatican, he said, but he made the decision because he had become “increasingly worried at the growing level of hurt” his conviction may have caused.
Wilson also noted his previous intention to defer the decision of whether to step down until after the completion of the appeal process, but said, “there is just too much pain and distress being caused by my maintaining the office of Archbishop of Adelaide, especially to the victims of Fr. Fletcher.”
“I must end this and therefore have decided that my resignation is the only appropriate step to take in the circumstances.”
Wilson, 67, was convicted May 22 of concealing abuse committed by a fellow parish priest in New South Wales in the 1970s. At the time, Wilson had been ordained a priest for only one year.
The victims of the scandal, Peter Creigh and another altar boy who is unnamed for legal reasons, said they both had told Wilson of their abusive experience with Fr. James Fletcher.
The archbishop was sentenced July 3 to a 12-month sentence, which will likely be served as house arrest, but said July 4 he planned to appeal the conviction. Wilson said he was aware of the calls for his resignation, and was taking them very seriously, but intended to resign only in the case of the failure of the new appeal.
In June Pope Francis appointed Bishop Gregory O’Kelly of Port Pirie apostolic administrator of the Archdiocese of Adelaide. O’Kelly will continue to oversee the archdiocese until the appointment of a new bishop.
Upon the announcement of Wilson’s resignation, Bishop O’Kelly said that the last few weeks had been a “testing time for so many,” including both victims of abuse in the Church and the archbishop himself.
“With the resignation, may there now be a time of healing for all concerned,” he continued. “May we not forget the good the Archbishop had done in so many ways while at the same time renewing our resolve to care for those who have been hurt by personnel of the Church.”
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
This article didn’t mention that Archbishop Wilson said on oath that he had no memory of the men coming to him to report the abuse 40 years ago. He said that he would have remembered so serious a conversation.
It seems as if Commission considered that the allegation that the men had informed Fr Wilson concerning the abuse sufficient proof that what they said was the truth but Abp Wilson’s denial of the conversation taking place was not considered proof of this innocence.