There has never been such a controversial statement by Father Dariusz Oko. It all happened at a meeting in Bolesławiec. As usual, Father Oko spoke about gender. After the two-hour presentation, however, one of the residents drew attention to the priest’s words about salvation. According to the clergyman, every person who lived in accordance with their conscience will attain it, regardless of what they did. Father Oko was accused of claiming that anyone convinced their choices were right would be rewarded. Dariusz Oko responded even more forcefully: “Can Koreans who murder priests be saved? Of course they can be saved.”
At the same time, he added that although this was the result of a “sick conscience,” the principle still applied. “It is not people’s fault that they are confused or manipulated,” Oko said in defense of the killers.
The audience began to protest. The meeting’s guests referred to natural law, according to which there is no justification for murder and everyone knows that it is wrong. Father Oko nevertheless stood by his position. “There is natural law, but people often fail to perceive or understand it through no fault of their own. Or they are unable to apply it. Jesus said that we should not judge, so that we would not be judged.”
In light of the recent massacre in Paris, the priest’s statement is astonishing. It means that the Parisian murderers, provided they remained faithful to their convictions, will receive a reward.
The rest of Dariusz Oko’s statements were what we already know. The world of the theologian and philosopher is simple: a Christian family consists of the happiest people in the world, a pregnant woman is an image of the union between God and man, and a wife must not be cheated on. The Church is the victim of bloodthirsty ideologies: Nazism, Stalinism, communism and the worst of them all: genderism. The believer is good and the atheist is bad; it is obvious who is the victim and who is the executioner. And if someone likes this black-and-white, unreflective description of the reality around them, they must have been delighted by the lecture.
It is worse for those who think independently. For how can one agree with someone who says: “Don’t read anything about gender; it’s not worth it. I will sacrifice myself for you, read it and tell you what it is about”? Philosopher Dariusz Oko summarized Simone de Beauvoir’s 900-page work “The Second Sex” in one sentence: “Poor Simone considered the child a parasite.” How can one believe someone who says that the Crusades were the defense of Christianity in enemy territory? And what should one think of someone who says that men invented 100% of all inventions? One feels like shouting: “Skłodowska was also... a man!”
It was a strange lecture. Father Oko distorted historical facts and presented many things as if he possessed knowledge at an elementary-school level. The clergyman created such confusion, for example with the reward for murderers, that some people may have left the meeting bewildered.
