News

Australian bishop sentenced to year’s detention for cover-up

Australian Archbishop Philip Wilson arrives for sentencing at Newcastle Local Court in Newcastle on July 3, 2018. Wilson, the most senior Roman Catholic cleric in the world to be convicted of covering up child sex abuse, was sentenced to 12 months in detention. (Darren Pateman/AAP Image via AP)

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — The most senior Roman Catholic cleric to be convicted of covering up child sex abuse was sentenced to 12 months in detention by an Australian court Tuesday in a landmark case welcomed by some abuse survivors as a strong warning to institutions that fail to protect children.

Newcastle Magistrate Robert Stone ordered Adelaide Archbishop Philip Wilson to serve at least 6 months before he is eligible for parole.

But Wilson will not immediately go into custody. Stone will consider on Aug. 14 whether Wilson is suitable for home detention. He could live with his sister near Newcastle.

Stone in May found the 67-year-old cleric guilty in the Newcastle Local Court of failing to report to police the repeated abuse of two altar boys by pedophile priest James Fletcher in the Hunter Valley region north of Sydney during the 1970s. Wilson faced a potential maximum sentence of two years in prison.

Stone said Wilson failed to act against Fletcher because he “wanted to protect the church and its image.”

“The whole of the community is devastated in so many ways by the decades of abuse and its concealment,” the magistrate said. “We are all the poorer for what has occurred.”

The sentencing was another step toward holding the church to account for a global abuse crisis that has also engulfed Pope Francis’ financial minister, Australian Cardinal George Pell. Some lawyers said they expect many more clerics to be charged in Australia as a result of Wilson’s test case.

Survivors of abuse who protested against the church outside the court on Tuesday called on Wilson to resign as archbishop. They carried signs accusing the church of hypocrisy and describing it as a “fraudulent cult.”

One of Fletcher’s victims, Peter Gogarty, an advocate for fellow survivors, said he was disappointed that Wilson had walked free from court, but “there is no doubt the archbishop has received a significant sentence.”

Survivors remained pleased by the landmark conviction, he said.

“We have made history here in Australia: The highest-ranked church official to ever be brought to account for what we know was a worldwide systematic abuse of children and the concealment of that abuse,” Gogarty told reporters. “So I’m content that we’ve done something in Australia that nobody else has been able to manage.”

Another victim, Daniel Feenan, said he would not have been abused by Fletcher as a 12-year-old in 1988 if Wilson had spoken out about the allegations he heard in 1976.

“I do feel I’ve got justice,” Feenan said after the sentencing. “It’s an absolutely strong message today.”

Maitland-Newcastle Bishop Bill Wright said Wilson as a bishop had taken vigorous action against child abusers. As bishop of Wollongong, Wilson had rejected a Vatican ruling that a suspected pedophile priest should return to duty. As Adelaide archbishop, he helped police extradite a lay church employee from the United States.

“It is a deep shock and disappointment that this man has been found guilty of covering up abuse,” Wright said in a statement.

“Archbishop Wilson is a longtime friend and colleague of mine, and almost like a member of my family. But in these matters, all of us must rigorously set aside such considerations in the interests of justice and the protection of children,” Wright added.

Prosecutors last month told the magistrate Wilson must be jailed to send a message that such institutional cover-ups will no longer be tolerated.

Defense lawyers argued that Wilson had several chronic illnesses and might not survive a prison sentence.

Australian state governments are ramping up pressure on the church to report child abuse and are legislating to prosecute priests who maintain that revelations of pedophilia made in the confessional cannot be disclosed. Wilson did not use the seal of the confession as an excuse for failing to acting on allegations against Fletcher. Instead, Wilson testified that he did not recall ever hearing allegations against his fellow priest.

Fletcher was arrested on unrelated child abuse charges in 2004 and died in prison of a stroke in 2006 while serving an almost eight-year sentence.

A five-year national inquiry into child abuse recommended in December that priests be prosecuted for failing to report evidence of pedophilia heard in the confessional.

Wilson stepped down as Adelaide archbishop after he was convicted in May. Adelaide is the capital of South Australia state which will bring in laws in October obliging priests to report evidence of abuse heard during a confession. The Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania state are planning similar laws.

But acting Adelaide Archbishop Greg O’Kelly said priests would not obey the law.

“Politicians can change the law, but we can’t change the nature of the confessional,” O’Kelly said last month.

Pell, who served at the Vatican as one of the pope’s top aides, has become the highest ranking Catholic in the world to be charged in the church’s global abuse scandal.

The 77-year-old faces trial in his home state of Victoria on decades-old child sex abuse allegations. Pell has denied wrongdoing. Details of the allegations haven’t been made public.

Francis has insisted top clerics be held responsible for failing to crack down on pedophile clergy.

About the author

Rod McGuirk

55 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Stone said Wilson failed to act against Fletcher because he “wanted to protect the church and its image.”

    The road to hell is always paved with such “good intentions.”

  • The trial in France in January, if it actually occurs, will be very important. If Ladaria is implicated in the cover-up, Francis will have stepped in a really, really, really big pile this time, likely much bigger than the Chile pile he stepped in.

  • Hmmmmmm.

    “Oh Fount of all morality, who art in heaven, please help decide me what is more important: The Image of thy church, or the safety of children?”

  • Archbishop Philip Wilson failed to follow his denomination’s Canon Law, which required him to report credible accusations against offenders and to remove such offenders from the ministry.

    In every instance where a bishop put himself above his church’s Canon Law, the result has been catastrophic.

  • The evidence is slim and none that he was motivated by trying to preserve “the image of the church”.

  • The most important take-away from the article is that Adelaide Archbishop Greg O’Kelly said priests would not obey the law requiring violation of the seal of confession.

    “Politicians can change the law, but we can’t change the nature of the confessional.”

    Since priests in the Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican communions – and some pastors in Lutheran churches – have suffered martyrdom rather than violate the seal, this sets the stage for a knock-down battle to come.

  • I do so wish that the cover-up of child sex abuse by bishops was not equated with the scare stories about the confessional. Many (most???) of these cases of bishops covering up abuse they knew about did not involve the confessional. Many of these cases involved the victims, parents, teachers or other adults telling another priest or telling the bishop outside of the confessional of their accusations or concerns. And, even outside of the confessional, the bishop did nothing or actively covered it up. We have the reports again and again from the U.S., Canada, Ireland, Australia about bishops learning of abuse outside of the confessional and doing nothing to involve civil authorities.

    I think it is important that Wilson is convicted and will be required to serve time. Younger and healthier I think he should serve that time in a prison. But, most important is the simply fact that it is recognized that a bishop did, indeed, fail to live up to the law. And that the bishop can be and will be held liable.

    One of the lessons for all of us is to be sure our local (state and/or federal) laws require people like priests and bishops to refer stories reported to them about child sex abuse to the local civil authorities. I do not want to go so far as to require that a person confessing to child sex abuse in the confessional should be reported. But, I would very much like to see the Church include a provision that in such a confession absolution be withheld until the person making such a confession has made restitution. The Church does provide for withholding of absolution in the case where the person confessing has falsely accused a priest of “solicitation to sin against the sixth commandment” and “unless the person has first formally retracted the false denunciation and is prepared to repair damages if there are any.” So, there is a precedence for withholding absolution if the priests reputation has been hurt. Why not withhold absolution when a child’s body and soul have been hurt? … and especially when it is a priest or religious who is responsible for that betrayal?????

  • I guess he finally took it too far. “Okay, Father, you knew about kids being abused and molested and tried to cover it up, denying justice for the innocents who were violated under the care of your institution. You obstructed justice and protected criminals.

    “That does it: you’re grounded! Go straight to your room, old man, and no movies for a whole YEAR.”

    Gosh, they’re strict.

  • From the article:

    “Defense lawyers argued that Wilson had several chronic illnesses and might not survive a prison sentence.”

  • A law which requires that a person confessing to child sex abuse in the confessional should be reported is unenforceable unless all confessions are recorded.

    What would the theological basis for “withhold(ing) absolution when a child’s body and soul have been hurt”?

    Btw the notion that “The Church does provide for withholding of absolution in the case where the person confessing has falsely accused a priest of ‘solicitation to sin against the sixth commandment’ and ‘unless the person has first formally retracted the false denunciation and is prepared to repair damages if there are any.’” is bogus.

    You should point out that out to the website you found it with this citation:

    https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2017/02/09/restrictions-on-absolution-are-not-so-easily-placed/

  • I’ve never understood why people who believe that their existence will become glorious perfection once they’re dead fight so hard to delay their entry into the goal they’ve worked so hard to attain.

  • A law to require that a priest divulge what was said in confession would not necessarily be unenforceable – but it would be difficult to enforce. I don’t really want that. But, I want priests and bishops and heads of religious orders who hear anything about sexual abuse outside of the confessional to report it to civil legal authorities for an adequate civil investigation. And, I do have to wonder if there could not be something in Canon Law that requires a person who confesses to such a grave sin to make reparations, to “repair damages”.

    What I quoted from is Canon 982 of Canon Law, Title IV: The Sacrament of Penance, Chapter II: The Minister of the Sacrament of Penance. This section of The Code of Canon Law can be found on the Vatican website here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P3G.HTM. It isn’t bogus, it is actually Canon 982. Here it is as it appears in the code of Canon Law on the Vatican website: “Can. 982 Whoever confesses to have denounced falsely an innocent confessor to ecclesiastical authority the crime of solicitation to sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is not to be absolved unless the person has first formally retracted the false denunciation and is prepared to repair damages if there are any.”

    That is it, Bob. It really does say that. It really is the English version of Canon Law that is on the Vatican website. The canonlawblog dances around. After all Canon Law lawyers are … well … lawyers. Are you?

  • Without a recording in any country that has reasonable due process – and I do not believe that includes Australia – a law requiring that a priest divulge what was said in confession would be unenforceable without a recording.

    Priests and bishops and heads of religious orders who are aware of credible allegations about sexual abuse are already required to report it to civil legal authorities for an adequate civil investigation IF they are in an area which has an actual functioning legal system – i.e., not North Korea .

    The article which I provided you addresses “something in Canon Law that requires a person who confesses to such a grave sin to make reparations, to ‘repair damages’”.

    Here is Canon 982 in translation:

    “A person who confesses to having falsely denounced to ecclesiastical authority a confessor innocent of the crime of solicitation to a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, is not to be absolved unless that person has first formally withdrawn the false denunciation and is prepared to make good whatever harm may have been done.”

    As the article which I provided makes clear, this is essentially unenforceable since to enforce it would require that the penitent identify her or himself, and so on.

    Every sin which damages or takes from another requires compensation and correction to the extent possible (obviously you can’t give someone his or her life back or take back an abortion), so this Canon does not add anything to the sacrament of Penance.

    This Canon is a residual entry from the Code of 1917 which reserved to the Holy itself forgiveness of a false public denunciation of an innocent cleric of solicitation. In the 1917 Code there was corresponding obligation to denounce a priest who was guilty of solicitation within the space of one month if said solicitation took place within the sacrament of Penance.

    As Edward Peters wrote:

    “Unusual public activities may generally not be imposed as penances for sins, and certainly not, I suggest, if those sins are not already known to have been committed by the penitent. … “

    “Public acts, however, which might be taken by others as works of sacramental satisfaction, must generally be avoided lest the revelation of the confession follow.“

    “Only, it seems, if a penitent’s sins are already known by the community to have been committed by the penitent (such as could occur if, say, one is known to have gone around falsely accusing an innocent neighbor of theft or adultery), could that penitent be directed, as a penance/satisfaction for sin repented of and absolved, to publicly retract the slander. Note, however, that such an obligation of ‘restitution’ already exists as matter of natural law, regardless of whether it was ordered as a penance, per e.g., Abbo-Hannan, Sacred Canons (1960) II: 16, citing Coronata, De Sacramentis (1943) I, n. 371, who seems worth quoting at length here:”

    “‘As for whether a public penance as sacramental satisfaction can be imposed on a penitent, under current law, it seems that such should be entirely rejected, for that would be to oblige a penitent to manifest his sin, something too burdensome and unreasonable. One could except the case where it is necessary for the public repair of scandal properly so-called, in which case the penitent is bound to repair this scandal publicly even if the confessor did not impose it as a sacramental penance.’ (my trans.)”

    The commission of a sin against a child is not analogous to a public act such as an accusation against a cleric.

    Everyone is obliged to make amends for wrongful acts already.

  • Except for you, apparently. Stop wasting everyone’s time on this forum, Bob Crotchit.

  • Slim? Slim enough to have an archbishop convicted of covering up sex abuse. But then the magistrate who heard the case isn’t as well informed as Bob Arnzen, the know-all.

  • As the resident apologist for Australia’s questionable legal system, I figured you’d comment on this case with your usual unsupported assessment, so I turned off blocking and sure enough, there you were.

    There is a long track record in Australia of anti-Catholicism and Australian criminal proceedings do not meet all the American standards of due process.

    As I worked my way through the Australian Commission report on abuse in churches, the discussion of which led me to block you in the first place, I noted individuals and organizations which are known in the USA for being both biased and unreliable – former Catholic priest Thomas P. Doyle and bishop-accountability.org are two examples – treated as “experts”. That very simply is nuts.

    In a country where a law purporting to void the seal of confession is on the books

    https://www.catholicregister.org/home/international/item/27526-australian-law-requires-priests-to-break-seal-of-confession-to-report-abuse

    the archbishop may not be winning popularity prizes in a witch hunt environment, but I see he is considering appealing.

    I have been unable to find a transcript of the hearing before a magistrate – an official who is not a judge but who hears evidence and renders a judgment – and am not sure why it is not available since I not familiar with the applicable criminal procedures in the jurisdiction.

    In the USA generally any judgment of a civil or criminal magistrate can be appealed to an actual judge who may have a better grasp of the law and the rules of evidence than a magistrate.

    The news reports indicate the alleged crime took place in 1976, 42 years ago. The defendant is in ill health and showing early signs of dementia or Alzheimer’s which, along with the passage of time, would make a defense impossible..

    One of the complainants allegedly told him in confession that another priest, James Fletcher, abused him.

    The law in the United States would not require Philip Wilson, then a priest, to violate the seal of confession and report that to the police.

    In general this case would never have made it to court in the USA based on the “he said, he said” evidence which apparently resulted in a trial.

    The other thing notable is that two elected politicians have called for the archbishop’s resignation. This sort of involvement of the civil authority in an internal denominational matter is extremely rare in the USA due to the First Amendment, which does not have a close counterpart in Australia.

    So, this is YOUR chance to tell us all about it.

    I’ll leave you unblocked long enough to read a response.

  • Bob, here are some things for you to consider.

    1 Anti-Catholic bigotry is a part of Australian history just like all the other predominantly Protestant English-speaking countries including the United States. However, that time has passed. In contrast with the United States, which has only had one President of Catholic faith, the present Prime Minister and the previous Prime Minister are both Catholics and the Catholic Church is the most powerful religious body in Australia. In the last census, 22.6% of Australians stated that they were Catholics. It is the largest church in Australia by far. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/mediareleasesbyReleaseDate/7E65A144540551D7CA258148000E2B85?OpenDocument

    2 Claims of dementia have been made by the Archbishop’s defence counsel. The Crown Prosecutor suggested that if Adelaide Archbishop Philip Wilson is as demented as it’s claimed, he could not look after his own affairs, let alone keep his job as one of the country’s leading clergymen. See https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/01/archbishop-to-be-assessed-for-fitness-to-stand-trial-over-sexual-abuse-cover-up

    3 Archbishop Wilson was prosecuted for not revealing what he knew about paedophile priest Jim Fletcher between 2004 and 2006 when Fletcher was facing justice for his crimes. See: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-03/who-is-archbishop-philip-wilson/9883638

    4 It appears that at least some of Archbishop Wilson’s fellow bishops have also advised him to resign. See https://www.smh.com.au/national/catholic-bishops-advise-archbishop-wilson-to-resign-20180705-p4zpqy.html

    5 Problems of clerical sexual abuse are not confined to Australia. Take the United States https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/20/cardinal-bernard-law-boston-sex-abuse-scandal-dies or Ireland https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2017/0208/851235-church-clerical-abuse/ or Chile https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/11/pope-francis-chile-bishops-sexual-abuse-scandal

    6 Perhaps it would help some other victims of abuse if their assailants were prosecuted. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/clerical-sex-abuse-scandal-has-led-to-few-convictions-1.2768746

  • If that is so, Archbishop Wilson failed to follow Canon Law and the law of Australia. That is why he was convicted.

  • As it turns out when I had more time to look into this, news reports indicate the alleged crime took place in 1976, 42 years ago. The defendant is in ill health and showing early signs of dementia or Alzheimer’s which, along with the passage of time, would make a defense impossible..

    One of the complainants allegedly told him in confession that another priest, James Fletcher, abused him.

    The law in the United States would not require Philip Wilson, then a priest, to violate the seal of confession and report that to the police.

    Canon Law would prohibit then Father Wilson from violating the seal of confession and reporting that to the police.

    In general this case would never have made it to court in the USA based on the “he said, he said” evidence which apparently resulted in a trial.

  • 1 The Prime Minister of Australia was not the magistrate in the case, nor an attorney for the Crown or the Defense.

    The single Catholic President so far in the United States, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, was elected in 1960 in part by defusing the issue of religion by paying obeisance to key Protestant leaders in the USA, by making a public statement during the campaign which toadied to an erroneous view of church-state relations, and by generally being more Protestant than Protestants.

    I was reminded of that as I read Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s and New South Wales Police Minister Troy Grant’s comments.

    https://pantheon-live.religionnews.com/2018/07/04/australia-bishop-appeals-conviction-for-protecting-pedophile/

    The single and only issue is that Australia is exhibiting a bias in its handling of cases involving Catholics, sufficient to offend a non-biased person’s sense of justice.

    2 The claims of impairment were supported, according to news reports, by medical examinations. The Crown’s suggestion that he could not look after his own affairs, let alone keep his job as one of the country’s leading clergymen, was irrelevant since at issue was recalling accurately events of 42 years ago, not reconciling his cheque book, that his attorneys were handling his defense rather than him doing it himself, and the archdiocese were and are being administered by an apostolic administer.

    3 That appears not to be the case since what he allegedly knew about paedophile priest Jim Fletcher was 100% based on what purported events of 42 years ago.

    4 Archbishop Wilson’s fellow bishops are entitled to personal opinions.

    5 The notion, prevalent in the USA, apparently now institutionalized in Australia in this rather bizarre frenzy of reports and prosecutions, that abuse is more prevalent among Catholic clerics appears to completely without objective support.

    When we read here in the USA about an Anglican bishop getting put through this sort of judicial donnybrook I will be willing to reconsider the matter.

    6 Archbishop Wilson was not an assailant.

    We’ve had this sort of thing in the USA:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria

    It led to almost exactly what is happening there: suspended disbelief, kangaroo courts, biased prosecutors and judges, all in the name of “justice”.

    Well, back to blocked.

  • Before you argued that Archbishop Wilson failed to follow Canon Law. Now you are arguing that Canon Law stopped him from reporting the allegation of sexual abuse to the police. Which is it?

    How can you be sure that Archbishop Wilson is suffering from dementia? Certainly, this claim was treated with scepticism by the prosecuting counsel. The Crown Prosecutor suggested that if Adelaide Archbishop Philip Wilson is as demented as it’s claimed, he could not look after his own affairs, let alone keep his job as one of the country’s leading clergymen. See https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/01/archbishop-to-be-assessed-for-fitness-to-stand-trial-over-sexual-abuse-cover-up

    If Canon Law prohibits priests from reporting cases of sexual abuse to the police it opens up the church to the accusation that it protects pedophiles and rapists. It would also explain why the Royal Commission on Institutional Responses to Sexual Abuse recommended that this be set aside.

  • 1 The Prime Minister has every right to express his opinion. In any case, it was backed up by the Leader of the Opposition and by Frank Brennan, a leading Catholic Please read this report: https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/victims-reiterate-calls-for-archbishop-philip-wilson-to-resign-or-for-pope-francis-to-sack-him/news-story/54053ca8998c48e7331be65a1ec7c72f

    2 You need to back this up with a link to a reliable source.

    3 I believe that this would have been tested in court.

    4 Yes, Archbishop Wilson’s fellow bishops would be aware of the damage that this refusal is doing to the image of the church.

    5 The problem of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is not just a “notion”. There is credible evidence to support the assertion that there is a disproportionate amount of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. This editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald makes sobering reading: https://www.smh.com.au/national/on-sexual-abuse-the-catholic-church-can-hide-no-more-20170207-gu7aq3.html
    This report to the Royal Commission on Institutional Responses stated, “Almost two-thirds of the schools and churches in which the offending took place were Catholic.” https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/Research%20Report%20-%20A%20statistical%20analysis%20of%20sentencing%20for%20child%20sexual%20abuse%20in%20institutional%20contexts%20-%20Government%20responses.pdf

    6 No-one accused the Archbishop of being an assailant. He was convicted of covering up the sexual assault.

  • Ignorant comment of the day, Bob. The PHYSICAL evidence might be in short supply, but there is plenty of testimonial evidence. Just because you reject testimonial evidence doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

  • I am not sure that it was the ignorant comment of the day, Frit, but to write “…. but there is plenty of testimonial evidence” without citing any strikes me as ignorant.

    As they say, just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean people aren’t after me.

  • Everyone is after you, Bob…

    Your personal problems are pretty clearly exposed here.

  • I AM sure. Google it yourself if you want citations of the testimonial evidence. I’m not here to do your work for you. Obviously there is testimonial evidence. How is that not crystal clear?

  • You can be sure until h-ll freezes over.

    If you want to convince anyone else, you have to do your own research and cite it.

  • Not true. If I want to convince you of something, I do not “have to” do my own research. If I want to convince you that sometimes grass is green, I say, “Look at that patch of green grass, Bob!” Obviously testimonial evidence exists here. Whether it’s true is a different question. I’m not claiming it’s true, just that your contention it does not exist is false.

  • Did he actually block you? It’s his huge, huge threat, According to St. Ego. But it’s funny, because he won’t block me. And in fact, I’m sure he’s so obsessive that he will show up as another comment here.

  • I have no idea. I don’t really have much time for those who engage in sophomoric reasoning, perhaps Junior High School level reasoning. But you’re probably right.

  • December 6 – Philip Wilson walked free today as an appellate court ruled it could not be proven beyond doubt that he had been explicitly told of the abuse, given the passage of time, his age, and diagnosis of early-stage Alzeheimer’s disease..

    “If a person has no memory of an even or occasion, they aren’t able to say why. Logically they can only admit that they have no memory. There is no proper basis on which I can rely to reject the evidence of the appellant.”.

  • December 6 – Philip Wilson walked free today as an appellate court ruled it could not be proven beyond doubt that he had been explicitly told of the abuse, given the passage of time, his age, and diagnosis of early-stage Alzheimer’s disease..

    “If a person has no memory of an even or occasion, they aren’t able to say why. Logically they can only admit that they have no memory. There is no proper basis on which I can rely to reject the evidence of the appellant.”.

  • December 6 – Philip Wilson walked free today as an appellate court ruled it could not be proven beyond doubt that he had been explicitly told of the abuse, given the passage of time, his age, and diagnosis of early-stage Alzheimer’s disease..

    “If a person has no memory of an even or occasion, they aren’t able to say why. Logically they can only admit that they have no memory. There is no proper basis on which I can rely to reject the evidence of the appellant.”..

  • December 6 – Philip Wilson walked free today as an appellate court ruled it could not be proven beyond doubt that he had been explicitly told of the abuse, given the passage of time, his age, and diagnosis of early-stage Alzheimer’s disease..

    “If a person has no memory of an even or occasion, they aren’t able to say why. Logically they can only admit that they have no memory. There is no proper basis on which I can rely to reject the evidence of the appellant.”.

2019 NewsMatch Campaign: This Story Can't Wait! Donate.

ADVERTISEMENTs