Why did Justin Welty resign
Executive summary
Justin Welby resigned as Archbishop of Canterbury after an independent inquiry — the Makin report — criticised his handling of allegations about prolific abuser John Smyth and concluded he had not ensured proper investigation or reporting, prompting sustained internal and public pressure that made his position untenable [1] [2]. Welby framed his departure as taking “personal and institutional responsibility” for the Church’s failures, even as some commentators and later statements disputed aspects of the report’s findings [3] [4].
1. The immediate cause: the Makin report and the Smyth scandal
The resignation was precipitated by publication of an independent review that exposed decades of brutal abuse by John Smyth and singled out senior church leaders — including Justin Welby — for failing to act decisively when they were told about allegations, with the report concluding that the Church could and should have reported Smyth to police and other authorities sooner [1] [5].
2. What the report said Welby did or did not do
Makin’s inquiry found that Welby had been notified about allegations and that, in the view of the review, he “had not done enough to deal with allegations” and failed to ensure a proper investigation, criticisms that the archbishop acknowledged in his resignation language about a “conspiracy of silence” and a need to take responsibility for the “long and re-traumatising period” victims endured [1] [6].
3. The pressure that pushed a reluctant leader out
Welby initially apologised after revelations surfaced and said he would not resign, but within days mounting pressure — including an online petition by clergy that rapidly gathered four-figure support and public calls from bishops — made staying politically and pastorally untenable, culminating in his offering his resignation to King Charles [7] [8] [9].
4. Welby’s own explanation and the language of responsibility
In his resignation statement Welby insisted his motive was to take “personal and institutional responsibility” and to signal seriousness about safeguarding reforms, framing resignation as a step to restore trust and mark a cultural shift in how the Church handles abuse [3] [6].
5. Dissenting views: was resignation necessary or fair?
Not everyone agreed the archbishop deserved to fall; opinion pieces argued there was no proven personal iniquity, that Welby lacked direct locus to resolve historic lay abuses, and that other senior figures and structural failures bore at least equal blame — points used to argue his resignation was disproportionate [10] [11]. Commentators also warned that resignation alone would not dismantle the “conspiracy of silence” or address systemic safeguarding failures the report exposed [12].
6. Aftermath and contestation: Welby’s later rebuttal
After stepping down, Welby later publicly disputed parts of the Makin report’s factual conclusions about whether the police had been told and about what he and others knew at the time, saying some evidence cited by the review was incomplete and that he believed aspects were wrong; this post-resignation contest complicates assessments of culpability and underlines both the political pressure he faced and continuing debate about institutional accountability [4].
7. What the resignation signifies beyond one man
Welby’s resignation is being read as a watershed moment: for victims it represented recognition and a symbolic accountability for church leadership, for critics it was overdue justice, and for defenders it felt like a politically forced sacrifice that may or may not produce the deep institutional reforms the Makin review demanded — the sources agree the scandal has exposed entrenched cultural problems that outlive any single resignation [6] [12] [1].