Most councillors defending the pope had not even seen the TVN report

In April, the Bolesławiec County Council passed a resolution defending the good name of John Paul II. The resolution has no practical effect, but it was nevertheless adopted. We wanted to ask all councillors why they voted—or did not take part in the vote. Two councillors (Chwojnicki and Matyjewicz) did not answer their phones, while three did not want to comment (Nenkin, Skóra and Stróżyński). The rest answered our questions.

What is surprising is that only one councillor said she had watched the TVN report in full. Most councillors had not seen the documentary that prompted the resolution at all. The report is based on conversations with victims of paedophile priests, State Security files, and an original letter by Karol Wojtyła himself, obtained from church archives in Austria. During production of the documentary, the Polish Church closed access to its archives.

The TVN report “Franciscan Street 3” can be watched free of charge at: https://tvn24.pl/go/programy,7/czarno-na-bialym-bielmo-odcinki,880782/odcinek-12,S00E12,1010607

The debate “John Paul II knew before he became pope” is available at: https://tvn24.pl/go/programy,7/czarno-na-bialym-bielmo-odcinki,880782/odcinek-13,S00E13,1012135

Below, we reproduce the responses of Bolesławiec County councillors.

Councillors who did not take part in the vote

“I did not take part in the vote. The County Council’s powers do not include the matters addressed by this resolution,” says Jan Kozak.

“I am guided by the principle of doing things that are pro-social and honest, in keeping with myself. I am not guided by the directives of organisations, parties and so on. I deal with what councillors and the council should deal with. I have serious doubts as to whether this resolution exceeds the scope of a councillor’s mandate. We could just as well introduce motions on abortion or other sensitive ideological issues that are outside our remit but create a great deal of confusion and unnecessary emotion. This resolution achieves nothing,” says Jacek Łuczkowski.

“The pope’s actions and life are enough to defend him. Matters of religious feeling cannot be the subject of proceedings such as those held during council sessions. An adopted resolution should serve some purpose; someone should oversee it. This is merely an expression of one’s position,” says Michał Bojanowski.

Councillors who supported defending the pope

“I concluded that John Paul II contributed to the fall of communism and was an icon of Solidarity. I decided to support him as a man thanks to whom we have democracy. In my opinion, there is too much harassment of the pope. I am a believer. As for the issue of concealing paedophilia, let us remember that he surrounded himself with various people and may have been misled—but I do not want to be his judge, defender or prosecutor. I looked at all this not from a religious perspective but purely politically, in terms of the upheaval in the country,” says Wojciech Kasprzyk, chair of the council.

“This resolution is an expression of solidarity with people who protested against the defamation of Saint John Paul II. You cannot defame a man who is not only a saint but also did so much good. The whole world is outraged that we are insulting our own saint. I know that when John Paul II learned about paedophilia, he demoted a priest. I think I read that in some religious newspaper. I am from Kraków, so I know how honest he was. Someone else caused the trouble, but they blame the pope. That is disgusting to me. What they are writing now cannot be taken seriously. You cannot defame a saint. There is no evidence of this. These are inventions by someone who wants to cause a disturbance. I do not believe it,” says Jadwiga Bobek, a councillor who also heads the Society of Friends of Children.

“For me, leaving religious considerations aside, he is the sole symbol of Poland’s pursuit of freedom in the 1970s and 1980s. Personally, he is an important figure to me. Does this resolution change anything? Probably not. It is an expression of respect, showing that we do not forget the pope’s contribution. Adopting this resolution was somewhat connected with our emotions. I leave the situation concerning allegations of covering up paedophilia to everyone’s own judgement. I am not an expert and did not follow it closely,” says Tomasz Gabrysiak.

“If someone close to me is slandered, I defend them. And when it comes to allegations against Saint John Paul II, are they true? I doubt whether the appropriate institutions investigated them at the proper time, and now historians are doing so. Where were they taken from—from the communist-era security services? Why now? I think someone wants to create a storm, while at the same time wants us, as Poles who are raising our heads after our country’s growth, not to raise them after all. As a Pole, I believe we should defend our authorities, because we do not have many, especially one as exceptional as the Polish Pope. I do not see this as political at all. Saint John Paul II is an authority for both Poland and the world. We should stand by him and say that we do not agree to his defamation. We are people who want our authorities to be respected. As people, we are quick to judge others, often relying on slander and not knowing everything about them. Saint John Paul II is an example of a great Pole and a moral authority to me. I know him through his activities, works, homilies and apostolic exhortations, so I have no reason not to believe in his greatness. I also want to emphasise that I do not tolerate paedophilia. To me, it is worse than murder. All perpetrators should be punished. I would defend every abused child, regardless of whether the perpetrator was a lawyer, teacher, priest or the president himself, if guilt were proven,” says Jan Russ, the resolution’s initiator.

“I intend to defend his good name just as I have so far. (Reports that the pope protected paedophile priests—editor’s note) do not bother me,” says Stanisław Zmaczyński.

“It is a complicated matter. To me, it is an issue that has been unnecessarily blown out of proportion. John Paul II is respected throughout the world. Since it has been blown up so much, he should be defended and people should oppose it. I think the pope did not protect paedophile priests, but tried not to publicise the matter. I think he knew. If an ordinary person knew, then he certainly knew even more. He definitely knew. When certain things are not publicised, sometimes everything can be overcome. But when they are blown out of proportion, it becomes a major problem and the effect is the opposite,” says Irena Zatylna. The councillor watched the TVN documentary “Franciscan Street 3”, but not in full.

“A good name defends itself, but there are attacks. History should judge him—people who are authorised to do so. The fact that councils adopt such resolutions will make opposing groups consider that the effect is the opposite,” says Leokadia Krawiecka. The councillor watched the TVN documentary. “The documents (presented in the programme—editor’s note) affect my judgement, but historians are the ones authorised to assess them. Everything needs to be placed in historical context, in the time when it happened. The dead have no opportunity to defend themselves. Why did nobody say this while the pope was alive, and only dredge it up now? Those were different times. I do not rule anything out, but I do not deny anything either. I am not authorised to judge it. It should come to light, whatever it may show. I want the truth to emerge,” adds Leokadia Krawiecka.

“So that we interfere as little as possible with what has been done so far, with any kind of harassment, because it makes no sense. It was what it was, and it is what it is. The Church has had paedophiles and probably will continue to have them. The pope may not have known about certain things,” says Ryszard Kalus.

“The pope is known throughout the world; there is nothing to defend,” says Mirosław Horzempa. Asked whether reports that the pope protected paedophiles reach him, he replied: “Many people know about such things. Everyone would have to be checked to see whether they are telling the truth.” The councillor did not watch the programme.

“We are Poles and we should all defend John Paul II’s good name. We are proud and we stand by that. The practice of concealing paedophilia continues. Why is someone only now attempting to undermine the pope’s authority and sainthood? It is not for me to judge,” says Barbara Kuduk, who also did not watch the programme.

“I lived through communism and believe he was an outstanding man who greatly contributed to the fall of that system. Reports of concealing paedophilia (editor’s note) do not convince me. Nothing emerges from the documents of the communist secret services, which monitored the activities of the metropolitan archbishop of Kraków. On the contrary, the impression is that nothing can be found against him. I plan to watch the TVN programme,” says councillor Waldemar Krysztofiak.

“We will not allow John Paul II’s name to be insulted. In my opinion, he was a good man and deserves recognition from everyone. Whether he knew or did not know… I will always stand by John Paul II. I did not watch the TVN programme,” says Jolanta Deberna.

Councillors who did not want to comment

Jarosław Nenkin, who voted for the resolution, did not want to answer why he supported the document and merely said that it was his business. He did not allow himself to be quoted verbatim. Józef Skóra behaved similarly: at first he did not know whether he wanted to answer the question, then said something but did not want to be quoted. Skóra also voted for the resolution and did not watch the TVN programme. “No comment,” replied Marcin Stróżyński when asked to justify his support for the resolution.

Other councillors

Stanisław Chwojnicki (voted for it) and Tomasz Matyjewicz (did not vote) did not answer their phones and did not call back.

Karol Stasik was absent from the chamber during the vote.