At first, this seemed like the routine lies that press offices tell.

During the recent visit of the new president of Argentina, for example, the Holy See Press Office said that the Holy Father had discussed abortion with the president, who advocates liberalizing the nation's abortion law.

But they hadn't discussed it.

Pope Francis hadn't raised it.

It was clumsy spin, a bit of easily corrected dishonesty. Embarrassing, but business as usual.

But after nearly three years, the "utmost respect" was more difficult to understand.

Across the depth and breadth of the Roman Curia how many people are there who have anything approaching even passing familiarity with Australian criminal justice?

In what was this "utmost respect" rooted?

I would hazard that the only Australian criminal case most curialists have even heard of would be that of Lindy Chamberlain - the "dingo" case.

That was a massive miscarriage of justice which saw an innocent mother falsely imprisoned for three years for the murder of her child.

The Australian justice system finally got around to fully exonerating her in 2012, thirty-two years after the death.

It is a false and dangerous thing for the Holy See to express "utmost respect" for judicial systems in regard to particular cases.

What the Holy See likely means is that the Australian - or Italian, or British, or American - system at least aims at justice, unlike that of China or Saudi Arabia.

But no matter how fine a criminal justice system may be in theory, it can be bent to unjust ends in a particular case.

Italians should know this more than most, given that for decades accusations that the criminal justice has been corrupted for partisan ends have been made at the highest levels.

It's enough to recall that former prime minister Giulio Andreotti was convicted of complicity in murder in 2002 even as the actual alleged killer was acquitted. The Italian supreme court acquitted him in 2003.

Thus to repeatedly express "utmost respect" for any system in relation to a particular case is to create confusion.

This is not just harmless diplomatic blather.

If a particular case treats a particular defendant unjustly, repeated assertions of "utmost respect" make it difficult, if not impossible, for the Church's canonical process to arrive at a different, honest result. And that would be the situation for any defendant who did not have the capacity to appeal his convictions, as Cardinal Pell did, to the High Court.

In the Pell case the professions of "utmost respect" became absurd bordering on the grotesque, given that it would be hard to find a single curial cardinal or bishop who did not think a monstrous injustice was taking place in Melbourne.

Despite what the Holy See said, there was precious little respect for Australian justice across the curia in this case.

Another Australian archbishop, Philip Wilson of Adelaide, was convicted of covering up sexual abuse only to be acquitted on appeal in 2018.

The appellate judge said flatly that Wilson could not be convicted as a scapegoat for the sexual abuse crisis.

Not much respectable there.

And not just Australia.

Cardinal Philippe Barbarin of Lyons was convicted of covering up sexual abuse while all of his many co-defendants on the same charge in the same case were acquitted.

Barbarin's conviction was quashed on appeal and it was clear that if he wasn't a cardinal he would never have been charged.

He resigned anyway.

"Respectable" criminal justice systems routinely convict the innocent, especially when involving alleged crimes against children.

In Canada, for more than twenty years innocent people were falsely accused and convicted of assaulting and killing children.

Parents were falsely convicted of killing their own children due to the malfeasance of the Ontario coroner's office.

It would be hard to imagine a more profound abuse of state power: innocent people sent to jail, reputations destroyed, families sundered, children traumatized and guilty parties going free.

Is Canadian criminal justice worthy of "utmost respect"? Continue reading

The trial caused hurt to many people, most especially victims of child sexual abuse who thought the law was being rightly applied to put an errant Catholic bishop in the frame.

Wilson was charged under a provision of the New South Wales Crimes Act, section 316, which has hardly ever been used.

It's a provision which was introduced in 1990.

It was reviewed by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission in 1999 and comprehensively trashed.

Some commissioners thought the provision should be abolished. Others thought it should be retained.

But even they said, 'It must be accepted that the present provision is seriously flawed; to be brutal about it, it is in several crucial respects virtually meaningless.

In our view, the essential problem is not that the section's underlying philosophy is mistaken but that it breaches the fundamental rule that the criminal law be unambiguous.'

For all practical purposes, the provision has now been replaced by a much more sensible and workable provision, section 316A, which is designed to deal with failures to report child sexual abuse.

Robert Stone, the magistrate who tried Wilson's case, failed to apply the cumbersome section 316 appropriately.

But it's hard to blame Stone too much as the provision is so badly drafted that even a bench of Supreme Court judges would have trouble making sense of it. And Philip Wilson was always the wrong test case for this cumbersome, unworkable legislative provision.

The New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions decided to charge Wilson with a very convoluted offence under section 316.

The charge related to the Archbishop's alleged failure to report information more than 33 years after an alleged child sexual assault by a priest Fr Fletcher, and 28 years after it was alleged that the victim Peter Creigh had told Wilson about the assault.

This was the charge:

'Between 12:01 am on 22/04/2004 and 11:59 pm on 07/01/2006 at East Maitland. Whereas James Fletcher in 1971 committed a serious indictable offence, namely, indecent assault of a male, aged 10 years old, Philip Edward WILSON between 22 April 2004 and 7 January 2006 at MAITLAND and elsewhere in the State of New South Wales, believing that Fletcher committed that offence and knowing that he had information which might be of material assistance in securing the prosecution of Fletcher for that offence, without reasonable excuse, failed to bring that information to the attention of a member of the New South Wales Police Force.'

By 22 April 2004, Fletcher was already before the courts, having been convicted of historic child sex offences.

He was in jail until his death on 7 January 2006.

All these years later, Wilson had no recollection of any such conversation with Creigh, saying that he thought he would have recalled such a graphic conversation if it had occurred.

Archbishop Philip Wilson

Wilson had legal advice from an expert in the law on child sexual abuse that any information he had would not have been of material assistance to the police all these years later.

After all, the police had already detained and charged Fletcher with offences for which they had more than hearsay evidence. Wilson argued that he had reasonable excuse for failing to bring any information to the attention of police.

The magistrate delivered a 59-page judgment.

He messed up the law, and did not even consider some of the key legal questions necessary to secure a conviction.

And he took a very dim view of Wilson's credibility.

It was the magistrate's adverse findings on Wilson's credibility together with Wilson's earlier refusal to assist with police inquiries and the unpublished adverse findings against him by Commissioner Margaret Cunneen which convinced me that Wilson's continued role as Archbishop of Adelaide was unsustainable.

The magistrate was very favourably impressed by the credibility of Peter Creigh.

He was also impressed by the credibility of some other witnesses who said they had told Wilson similar things all those years ago.

For example, the magistrate was convinced beyond reasonable doubt that a witness who was another of Fletcher's victims had told Wilson in confession in 1976 about the abuse he suffered.

This penitent was sure it was Wilson in the confessional because he could see his big red lips behind the confessional grille and he recognised Wilson as the priest with the booming voice.

In relation to this witness, the magistrate said, 'I find that he gave reliable evidence. This is despite his evidence being contradicted by Mr Creigh's evidence that the accused did not have a distinctive voice or very red lips.'

The magistrate resolved this conflict of evidence by observing that the penitent witness said Wilson 'wasn't using a "booming voice" in the confessional'.

The magistrate was convinced beyond reasonable doubt saying, 'I find that a conversation occurred in the confession box in late 1976 as recounted by (the witness) in his testimony in the court and the accused heard the account.'

The magistrate's decision was riddled with these sorts of errors.

Members of the public have generally been unable to assess the magistrate's judgment because the court made it available only at the Newcastle court registry.

The only way you could read it was to travel to Newcastle and you were not permitted to copy any part of it.

You could only take notes.

I did that and wrote to the New South Wales Attorney General more than four months ago with a couple of suggested reforms:

• First, when the court delivers a judgment which contains material which might identify particular persons entitled not to have their identities published, the court should provide a means whereby interested persons might gain access to a redacted copy of the judgment in the same way as they would have access to any other judgment of the Magistrates Court, while ensuring the anonymity of all persons entitled to a suppression order.
• Second, when the court delivers a judgment (especially when outside Sydney) which is said to be a 'world first' and 'of international significance', the court should ensure that the judgment is accessible not just to those media outlets and interest groups with the resources or proximity to the local court where the decision is delivered. At the very least, a copy of the judgment should be made available in Sydney.

My letter did not even warrant an acknowledgment from the Hon. Mark Speakman SC MP.

The reforms have not been instituted.

Like Stone, the appeal judge, Judge Roy Ellis found: 'Creigh was an honest witness doing his best to recall events in 1976'.

Wilson received a much more sympathetic hearing on his appeal to Ellis of the District Court.

Unlike Stone, Ellis said, 'I have closely considered the evidence of the Appellant (Wilson) and concluded that there is no legitimate basis to reject his evidence.

'In conjunction with the other evidence in the case the evidence of the appellant raises a reasonable doubt in my mind that in 2004-6 the appellant had a memory of a conversation in 1976 in which Mr Peter Creigh told him that James Fletcher had indecently assaulted him.'

In relation to any 1976 conversation between Creigh and Wilson, Ellis concluded, 'I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Philip Wilson had a memory of it in 2004-6'.

Even if such a conversation had taken place and even if Wilson did have a memory of it three decades later, Ellis also had 'a reasonable doubt as to whether (Wilson) formed any belief, be it belief or disbelief, as to the truth or otherwise of the allegation'.

Abuse survivor Peter Gogarty

There is already talk of further appeals.

But no appeal court hereafter has any power to interfere with Ellis' findings on the credibility of the witnesses including Wilson.

Let's hope emotions can settle.

Law reformers should do their work. Section 316 should be repealed or comprehensively overhauled.

Wilson has done the right thing and resigned as Archbishop of Adelaide.

He should be left in peace.

As I said almost two years ago in my address to the Australian Lawyers Alliance, the charge was unwarranted and unlikely to be proved.

Everyone, including the victims of abuse and church officials like Wilson, is entitled to be governed by laws which are clear, sensible and practical. Section 316 is not, and never has been.

The DPP would be well advised to leave section 316 out of all future proceedings.

The Wilson show trial on section 316 should not be repeated.

And I would see little point in the DPP appealing the District Court decision.

Section 316 is a dead letter, and it causes nothing but trouble to everyone involved.

The road to truth, justice and healing will not be found via any more prosecutions under the derelict section 316.

I hope and pray that Peter Creigh and Philip Wilson might one day be reconciled.

In this instance, the processes of the criminal law have inflicted great harm on each of them.

• Frank Brennan SJ, a former Professor of Law at the Australian Catholic University is currently CEO of Catholic Social Services Australia.
• First published in Eureka Street. Repbulished with permission.
• Images: AAP, SMH,

Wilson had been found guilty in May of concealing the abuse of altar boys in the 1970s by paedophile priest James Fletcher. At the time, he was the most senior cleric in the world ever to be convicted of covering up sex abuse.

Last week, the New South Wales appeal court judge Roy Ellis ruled in Wilson's favour, saying there was reasonable doubt he had ever committed the crime.

The crime is punishable by up to two years' imprisonment.

Wilson had served almost four months of his year-long home detention sentence at his sister's house. He was to become eligible for parole after serving six months.

He has always maintained his innocence. After his conviction he initially refused calls for his resignation until he had exhausted his appeal options.

However, after former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull called on the Vatican to act to force him to resign, Wilson sent Pope Francis his resignation as the archbishop of Adelaide in June.

Administrator Delegate of the Adelaide Archdiocese, Philip Marshall - who is Wilson's replacement - says the church has noted the judgment and welcomed the conclusion of a process that had been long and painful for all concerned.

"We now need to consider the ramifications of this outcome," Marshall said in a statement.

"The survivors of child sexual abuse and their families are in our thoughts and prayers, and the archdiocese remains committed to providing the safest possible environments for children and vulnerable people in our care."

Source

• CNN
• Crux Now
• La Croix
• Catholic Herald
• Image: Eureka Street

Wilson has been found guilty of concealing the crimes of paedophile priest James Fletcher who was convicted of child sexual abuse in 2004 and died in jail in 2006.

Magistrate Robert Stone said Wilson had shown no remorse or contrition for the cover-up and his primary motive had been to protect the Catholic Church.

Stone accepted Wilson was unlikely to re-offend but said he had to serve a period of detention to act as a deterrence to others.

He sentenced Wilson (67) to a year's imprisonment. However, he ruled the sentence should be served through a minimum six-month home detention order at Wilson's sister's house.

Wilson will appeal his conviction in the District Court in a hearing in November.

Meanwhile, the Director of Public Prosecutions' office has lodged an inadequacy appeal against Wilson's sentence.

It will proceed on November 27 and 28. The first day will be reserved for the appellate judge to read the court transcript.

Although he initially resisted resigning as archbishop pending his appeal, for him to do so led to him offering Pope Francis his resignation.

Francis accepted Wilson's resignation as archbishop on 30 July.

Source

• news.com.au
• nz herald
• The Newcastle Herald
• Image: Radio NZ

Wilson (67) has been convicted of concealing paedophile priest Jim Fletcher's abusive behaviour in the 1970s.

As Wilson was leaving the Newcastle Local Court after being sentenced on Tuesday, a group of victims was waiting for him.

Peter Gogarty, who was one of Fletcher's victims, asked Wilson to apologise.

"Philip, please, something - one word of contrition," he called, when it became obvious Wilson was not going to answer.

Instead, one of Wilson's supporters asked Gogarty why he'd waited 40 years to come forward.

The supporter is reported to have said, "I don't have time for rubbish like you, mate."

Gogarty then began yelling "you pig, you pig!"

He said he was "beside himself" because Wilson wouldn't apologise.

"The grace has shown no grace," Gogarty said.

"Will no one in the Catholic Church say sorry to me and others?"

Gogarty says he told Wilson of the abuse 40 years ago, because "40 years ago people opened their mouths to people like…[him]…who did absolutely nothing to help them."

In May Wilson was sentenced to a year's detention, of which six months is non-parole.

On Tuesday, Magistrate Robert Stone told the Newcastle Local Court Wilson was to begin serving his sentence immediately at his sister's home.

In Stone's opinion, Wilson is unlikely to offend again. He noted Wilson had expressed ‘no remorse or contrition,' instead he was primarily motivated to protect the church.

Wilson's lawyer says they would lodge an immediate appeal against Wilson's conviction.

Source

• BBC News
• ABC
• Image: The Tablet

In May this year Wilson was convicted of covering up the sexual abuse of minors in the 1970s. Read more

The calls to resign come not only from victims, anti-church crusaders and commentators of every ilk, but also eminent Catholics who fear he may cause more damage by staying on.

I do not wish to debate the rights or wrongs of resignation but simply reflect on whether the pursuit of Wilson could in any sense be described as a witch-hunt and whether he might be seen as a scapegoat for the sins of many.

First, I do not know Wilson and have interviewed him just once.

I am not a Catholic or a church-goer.

I abhor sexual abuse and its concealment.

I do know a bit about churches (one brother is an Anglican bishop, the other a dean, in England).

As a journalist I have covered legal cases and watched expert lawyers in action in all courts.

I have witnessed merciless interrogations of murderers and conmen, of premiers (Brian Burke and Carmen Lawrence) and businessmen (Alan Bond).

Alarm bells about the Wilson story rang for me eight years ago.

In May 2010, the ABC broadcast a report nationally which claimed that abusive priest James Fletcher had regularly taken a 12-year-old boy up to his room at the Bishop's House in Maitland, New South Wales, in the 1970s.

The report suggested that as Wilson lived in the same house he must have seen the boy going upstairs.

I was an ABC journalist based in Adelaide and was intrigued partly because the protagonist's story was so shocking and also because the report contained only brief responses on the Archbishop's behalf and he appeared nowhere on camera.

Having previously worked on detailed church investigations (including into an Anglican archbishop) I knew it was important to get an on-camera response to such a serious accusation.

I was aware The Australian was also asking for an interview.

To my surprise I was told by the Archbishop's local media manager that the ABC had sent a series of questions to Wilson but only on the morning of the broadcast and it had been impossible at such short notice to answer in detail questions about the 1970s.

They felt it had been an 'ambush' by the ABC, told me an interview was unlikely, but the request would be passed on.

I then breached normal ABC protocol on someone else's story and did a bit of checking myself.

A look online revealed the complainant was born in 1960 and so would have been 12 in 1972.

Wilson was born in 1950 and ordained in 1975.

So when it was suggested the 12-year-old could have been seen climbing to Fletcher's bedroom, Wilson was still three years from becoming a priest.

This was a serious mistake in a story the ABC's then managing director had said earlier had taken months to research. (The story was later corrected online.)

I was disturbed that the report had gone to air with such basic errors and that Wilson had been sent questions only on the morning of the broadcast.

The complainant's number was online so after work I rang him and we had a friendly conversation.

He told me he had never claimed he'd been 12 at the time he'd seen Wilson at the house.

My decision not to talk immediately to Sydney and to contact the complainant was to cause me grief later in the week when out of the blue the Archbishop's media manager told me I could interview Wilson (he was also going to talk to The Australian).

I grabbed a camera and headed for the Archbishop's House.

He was polite and gracious and said I could ask him anything.

His manner was quiet and thoughtful. I have kept a transcript of the interview. Continue reading

Sources

• Alan Atkinson (pictured) has been freelance writing and editing full-time since leaving the ABC in 2015 after ten years as chief of staff, producer and day editor of the Adelaide newsroom.
• Image: PRWeb

The interview concerned Archbishop Philip Wilson's refusal to stand down as Archbishop of Adelaide after his conviction for concealing child sex abuse.

One of Australia's leading radio personalities, the ever-popular Laws comments regularly on issues impacting life in Australia.

Frank Brennan is a Jesuit priest, academic and human rights lawyer.

Once dubbed by Paul Keating, then Australian Prime Minister as "the meddling priest," Brennan, for some time, has almost been a lone voice among Australian clergy calling for Wilson's resignation.

A professor of Law in Public Policy at the Australian Catholic University and visiting professional fellow at the University of New South Wales, in 1995 Brennan was appointed as an Officer of Australia.

The award recognised his service to Aboriginal Australians, particularly as an advocate in the areas of law, social justice and reconciliation.

He now serves as CEO of Catholic Social Services Australia.

Introducing Brennan's interview, Laws said the Catholic Church stands condemned for its 'stupid' refusal to dump convicted criminal Archbishop Philip Wilson.

Laws suggested the Church is 'losing the plot', certainly 'not making friends' and the Church should be leaning on Wilson to resign.

"Can you think of any other workplace environment where somebody who is convicted of concealing child sex abuse could ever hold out hope of returning of their former role?" asked Laws.

Calling it a damning indictment of Wilson, Laws said, years ago, Wilson had the chance to speak up for children and failed to do so.

Expressing surprise at the Church's attitude, Laws said the event gives the Church an opportunity to speak up for victims and 'front foot' the battle of child sex abuse.

In a hard-hitting introduction, Laws says he is not surprised the confidence in the Catholic Church is eroding and he suggests it will continue to be eroded unless it picks up its act.

After the interview, the veteran broadcaster concludes saying he enjoyed talking with Brennan, calling Brennan "a refreashing priest" and "a delightful fellow".

He complemented Brennan on his knowledge and that he is prepared to speak his mind.

To listen, press the play icon (below left) on the audio bar.

Sources

• Radio 2SM
• News.com.au

The allegations involved two altar boys who were abused by a paedophile priest. They disclosed the abuse to him in the 1970s.

Wilson, who is 67, is the most senior Catholic official in the world to be convicted of concealing child abuse.

He is likely to serve his 12-month sentence in home detention.

Wilson says he is aware of the calls for his resignation and has "taken them very seriously."

"However, at this time, I am entitled to exercise my legal rights and to follow the due process of law.

"Since that process is not yet complete, I do not intend to resign at this time," he says.

However, he says if his appeal is unsuccessful he will immediately offer his resignation to the Holy See.

Until a decision regarding his appeal has been made, Wilson says he won't be making any further public statements.

In the meantime, he has stepped aside from his position as archbishop.

Pope Francis has appointed Bishop Greg O'Kelly SJ as apostolic administrator of Adelaide.

He has taken on the diocese's leadership responsibilities.

Archbishop Mark Coleridge, president of the Australian Bishops Conference, says that "a number of survivors, prominent Australians and other members of the community have publicly called on Archbishop Wilson to resign."

These include Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and opposition leader Bill Shorten who have argued that the archbishop is not in a position to lead.

"Although we have no authority to compel him to do so, a number of Australian bishops have also offered their advice privately," Coleridge says.

"Only the Pope can compel a bishop to resign."

Source

• Catholic News Agency
• SBS News
• Image: The Telegraph

Magistrate Robert Stone adjourned the matter to 14 August while Wilson's home detention order is assessed for suitability.

It's very likely that he will appeal his conviction and sentence.

An appeal may well succeed, but that's not the end of the matter.

This has been a six-year saga relating to events which occurred more than 40 years ago. The law is complex; and emotions are running high.

When bishop of Wollongong and later Archbishop of Adelaide, Wilson did a lot to improve the Catholic Church's national response to crimes of child sexual abuse committed by church personnel.

But the present criminal conviction and sentence of imprisonment relates to his time as a young priest in the diocese of Maitland-Newcastle back in 1976.

It was only later when he was Archbishop of Adelaide that some of his earlier behaviour came back to haunt him.

Local residents in Maitland-Newcastle who were sexually abused as children by either Fr McAlinden or Fr Fletcher have been very outspoken against Wilson, regardless of his later behaviour as a bishop nationally committed to cleaning up the mess.

In 1990, the New South Wales parliament had amended the Crimes Act creating a new offence of concealing a serious indictable offence. Section 316(1) provides:

'If a person has committed a serious indictable offence and another person who knows or believes that the offence has been committed and that he or she has information which might be of material assistance in securing the apprehension of the offender or the prosecution or conviction of the offender for it fails without reasonable excuse to bring that information to the attention of a member of the police force or other appropriate authority, that other person is liable to imprisonment for 2 years.'

In 1999, the New South Wales Law Reform Commission reviewed this provision and found it wanting. The majority of commissioners recommended complete repeal of the provision.

They said: 'The Commission disapproves of substituting a legal duty which is enforced by a criminal sanction for a moral one unless there are overall substantial benefits to society in doing so. No such overall benefits have been demonstrated in relation to s 316(1)'.

A minority of commissioners thought there might be a case for some provision but even they said, 'It must be accepted that the present provision is seriously flawed; to be brutal about it, it is in several crucial respects virtually meaningless.

In our view, the essential problem is not that the section's underlying philosophy is mistaken but that it breaches the fundamental rule that the criminal law be unambiguous.'

Basically, the law was making it a criminal offence for anyone not to report to police anything they might know about the criminal behaviour of any other person 'without reasonable excuse'.

But no one knew what constituted a reasonable excuse, especially when the victim of the crime or their trusted confidantes chose not to go to the police.

For whatever reason, back in July 2012, Wilson refused to cooperate with the NSW police when they were investigating complaints against McAlinden.

Wilson as a young priest and budding canon lawyer had been the notary at a church trial of McAlinden.

Detective Graeme Parker, the head of Strike Force Lantle, told the Sydney Morning Herald: 'It's a shame because there are questions that really need to be asked of Archbishop Wilson. We made numerous attempts to get him to the table to be interviewed but he's exercised his right to silence.'

I daresay that if Wilson had cooperated with the police back then, that would have been the end of the matter.

From that time on, victims of abuse thought that Wilson had something to hide. Continue reading

• Frank Brennan SJ is the CEO of Catholic Social Services Australia.

Wilson was sentenced to 12 months' detention in a magistrate-only trial in a Newcastle, Australia on Tuesday. He will be eligible for parole after six months.

He is the most senior Catholic cleric in the world found guilty of concealing child sex abuse.

Magistrate Robert Stone said in announcing the sentence: "There is no remorse or contrition showed by the offender.

"I am of the opinion the sentence should not be suspended. It does not support the terms of general deterrence.

"On that basis, the only available remaining option is full-time imprisonment or home detention."

Stone has adjourned the details of the sentence until next month while Wilson is assessed for home detention.

The court can request an assessment for home detention after sentencing an offender to a term of imprisonment of no more than 18 months.

The premier of South Australia Steven Marshall, prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and opposition leader Bill Shorten are calling for Wilson to resign immediately.

The New South Wales police minister Troy Grant, a former police officer, said the sentence handed to Wilson was appalling.

"This is no deterrent as a sentence. It's appalling, the children deserve better, the victims deserve better and the community do," he says.

Wilson says he is innocent of the offending and intends lodging an appeal.

"I do not intend to resign at this time. However, if I am unsuccessful in my appeal, I will immediately offer my resignation to the Holy See."

Lawyers for Wilson, who maintained his innocence throughout the legal process, had argued that he did not know another priest, James Fletcher, had abused a boy.

Two victims say they told him about it in 1976. One was an altar boy who told him inside the confessional.

Fletcher was subsequently found guilty in 2004 of nine counts of child sexual abuse. He died in jail in 2006.

Source

• Channel News Asia
• ABC
• The Guardian
• Image: The New Daily
  

Pope Francis says Bishop Gregory O'Kelly of the neighboring diocese of Port Pirie has been selected as the administrator. Read more

He is the most senior Catholic official in the world to be charged and convicted of this offence.

The 67-year old faces a possible two-year prison sentence.

Wilson will be sentenced next week.

He has announced he will stand down from his duties while he considers his legal options.

He says he may formally resign as archbishop if it becomes necessary.

Frank Brennan, an Australian Jesuit priest, human rights lawyer and academic, said Wilson had to stand aside as archbishop of the South Australian state capital.

"I would think that the mind of Pope Francis at this stage would be that if there be a conviction of a bishop in relation to a failure to disclose abuse in circumstances where the state thought that was criminal activity, then I would think the mind of the pope would be that that doesn't measure up in church terms either and that therefore it would be impossible for someone to remain in the job as a bishop," Brennan said.

Brennan said Wilson had complied with the nondisclosure culture of the church in the 1970s.

"There's no doubt that Archbishop Wilson in recent years … has been one of the good guys. He has been one of the bishops in the Catholic Church who have been trying to clean things up," Brennan said.

"But this relates to when he was a young priest. Even someone like him who later got it back in those years was so confined by our culture that it would seem there was no disclosure," he added.

The abuse Wilson concealed was committed by Fr Jim Fletcher in the 1970s.

The prosecutor, Gareth Harrison, told the court Wilson must be jailed to deter others from trying to protect the Catholic church from abuse allegations.

Wilson claimed no-one had ever come forward to tell him of allegations of child sex abuse during his 40 years as a clergyman.

The magistrate cast that claim aside.

Speaking outside court, abuse survivor Peter Gogarty said the verdict was "one of the most significant days in criminal law in Australian history."

"I think this will now open the doors for other jurisdictions to start looking at trying to prosecute people who deliberately looked after their institution and, literally, threw children to the wolves," he said.

"On behalf of all of the victims — who have been abused in this country and elsewhere — I just want to say what an enormous relief it is that the people who let this happen are finally being brought to account."

Wilson also made a statement, saying he would consider the reasons for the magistrate's ruling.

"I am obviously disappointed at the decision published today," he said.

"I will now have to consider the reasons and consult closely with my lawyers to determine the next steps."

Source

• The Guardian
• ABC
• Catholic Herald
• RNS
• Image: The Advertiser

Wilson's lawyers say he is medically unfit to give evidence because of physical and mental health issues.

In 2015 he was charged with covering up a Hunter Valley priest's abuse, which took place in the 1970s.

The priest, Jim Fletcher, has since died.

Adelaide neurologist Associate Professor Andrew Lee told the Court an examination of the 67-year old archbishop after a severe fall earlier this year brought to light a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease.

He has also recently had a pacemaker installed.

The prosecutor asked Lee if Wilson could have been malingering during these tests.

Lee agreed it was possible, and said the archbishop must be assessed further by a neuro-psychologist to determine if he is fit to stand trial.

He said in his opinion Wilson was a genuine person and wasn't trying to put something over him during the tests.

In a statement, Wilson says many people's initial reaction to an Alzheimer's diagnosis is to think life is all but over.

His statement goes on to say a person with such a diagnosis "cannot continue to live a productive life and contribute to society.

"I am fully aware that some people will now judge me in this light. But I hope to prove them wrong.

"I have been prescribed medication that may assist me greatly in slowing the progress of this disease and indeed improve my present condition."

The Newcastle Local Court has heard that the medication could take six months to work, but it is successful for only one in three sufferers.

Some abuse survivors say Wilson should step down because of his Alzheimer's diagnosis.

Wilson isn't keen to retire yet, however.

"If a point comes in the next eight years before my mandatory retirement, and I am advised by my doctors that the effects of Alzheimer's disease might be beginning to impair my ability to function properly as Archbishop, I will offer my resignation," he said.

Wilson says he has informed the Apostolic Nuncio in Australia of his condition and will provide him with the medical reports.

"I will update him regularly with the results of tests and consultations with my neurologist during the years ahead.

"I am in God's hands and I trust in the love and care of the Lord on the journey of life I have before me."

Source

• news.com.au
• ABC
• Image: The Advertiser

Archbishop Philip Wilson of Adelaide was giving evidence at Sydney hearings by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

Archbishop Wilson said the Congregation for Clergy had a history of hindering bishops' efforts to deal with child abuse allegations against priests.

"Bishops, especially in the US, were trying to deal with these cases involving abuse and the Congregation for the Clergy consistently made things difficult for them in trying to deal with that," he said.

"The Congregation for the Clergy always came down on the side of the priest," he explained.

"The instructions that they gave to the bishops were that what they had done had to be stopped or put aside, and allow the priest to go back into ministry."

The commission was considering the case of a former Wollongong parish priest, Fr John Nestor.

In 1996, he was convicted of indecently assaulting a teenager, but was acquitted the next year.

Archbishop Wilson was Bishop of Wollongong at the time.

Fr Nestor was ultimately dismissed as a priest by Pope Benedict XVI in 2008.

This was after nearly 20 years of decrees, challenges and counter-challenges and after more abuse accusations surfaced.

Archbishop Wilson said a letter from the Vatican in 1998 indicated that Australia's Towards Healing protocols lacked the authority to remove a priest.

The Congregation for Clergy objected that the protocols did not have the authorisation of the Holy See.

Archbishop Wilson says he was prepared to take the matters involving Fr Nestor to Pope John Paul II, and he considered resigning.

In 2001, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger succeeded in wresting control of sex-abuse cases away from the Congregation for Clergy.

Since that time, accusations of abuse have been handled by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which has approved disciplinary action in several hundred cases.

Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, who was prefect of the Congregation for Clergy from 1996 to 2006, acknowledged in a 2010 interview that he encouraged bishops to protect priests from prosecution for sexual abuse.

Sources

• ABC
• CWN
• Image: The Australian

The NSW inquiry on abuse will look at whether the Church protected predatory priests in the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle.

The inquiry will also hear evidence from Father Brian Lucas, the secretary of the Australian Catholic Bishop's Conference, and the retired bishop of the Maitland-Newcastle, Bishop Michael Malone.

Continue reading

Hepworth hit out at reports he was considering dropping his claim, saying there has been no change in the standoff between both parties.

Archbishop Hepworth claims he was raped by the priests over a period of 12 years, starting when he was in the seminary in Adelaide in 1960.

It was reported by Adelaide Now that Hepworth said he would stop pursuing allegations against Monsignor Ian Dempsey if the Adelaide Archdiocese recognised he was raped by two other priests and would ask Archbishop Philip Wilson to adjourn it if his other claims were recognised and the Dempsey accusation accepted "in good faith".

The Adelaide Archdiocese has hired Michael Abbott QC to investigate the claims, but Hepworth has refused to participate.

"There is a stalemate and I'm hopeful that we can find some way to break through," Hepworth said.

"There's no good faith and I'm still trying to find some way forward.

"At this stage their solicitors are continuing to demand that I take part in the Abbott inquiry but we are continuing to state that we can't because we have not been given enough information to have confidence in it and we have objected to Abbott doing it on substantial grounds."

A spokesperson for the Adelaide Archdiocese confirmed the investigation by Mr Abbott was continuing.

Monsignor Dempsey denies the allegations of rape.

Sources

• Adelaide Now
• The Australian

The meeting with the cardinals was "an indication of the seriousness with which the Roman authorities in the dicasteries here want to enter into dialogue with the Australian bishops in looking at these issues," said Archbishop Philip Wilson of Adelaide, president of the bishops' conference.

The bishops promised the people of Toowoomba and all Australian Catholics that they would discuss the case with Vatican officials during their "ad limina" visits Oct. 10-22, Archbishop Wilson said.

Australian bishops who spoke to Catholic News Service in October described their "ad limina" visits, which are required of bishops to report on the status of their dioceses, as a prayerful, spiritual group experience. In addition to meeting the pope and Vatican officials, they made a pilgrimage to the Benedictine monastery at Subiaco, had a retreat day and celebrated Mass at the four major basilicas of Rome.

The 38 bishops also dedicated the altar in the chapel of the Domus Australia, a new pilgrim house in Rome, which Pope Benedict was scheduled to inaugurate Oct. 19.

Sharing with Vatican officials and "praying and reflecting on the situation in Australia," the bishops naturally wanted to discuss the situation of Bishop Morris and how to promote healing in his diocese, Archbishop Wilson said.

Full Story: CNS