During Thursday’s meeting of the Committee on Petitions, MPs considered a civic petition calling for a ban on hearing the confessions of people under 18. The petition was initiated by Rafał Betlejewski, founder of the new Fundacja Grupa Inicjatywa.
As MP Urszula Augustyn (KO) pointed out, the petition aimed to protect children from potential abuse and violations of their psychological boundaries. By mid-March 2025, it had been signed by more than 13,500 people.
Despite this, most committee members voted to reject the motion.
“We cannot take away parents’ right to raise their children in the Catholic faith,” argued MP Urszula Rusecka (PiS). In her view, children raised without Catholic values are now facing the greatest problems. Rafał Bochenek (PiS) went even further, stating that “Christianity is the foundation of our civilization” and describing the discussion about banning children’s confession as an attack on the Church and Catholics.
MPs from KO and Poland 2050 adopted a decidedly different tone. Marcin Józefaciuk (KO) pointed to the troubling practice of sending children to confession against their will, without supervision, to a person with no psychological qualifications. He asked: “Is the purpose of confession genuine absolution of sins, or control over a child’s life?”
Izabela Bodnar (Polska 2050-TD) stressed the ritual’s archaic nature and its potentially traumatic impact on children: “A child comes out of the confessional confused and with a sense of guilt. That can be harmful.”
Despite calls for a serious debate and reflection on the limits of religious influence over children, the committee rejected the petition by a vote of 8 to 2. Only opposition MPs voted against the decision.
Although the topic prompted a brief discussion, most MPs concluded that the state should not “barge into” religious matters—even when children’s psychological safety is at stake.
The full recording and automatic transcript of the committee meeting are below:
Rafał Bochenek: We move on to item 2, concerning consideration of the petition on banning children’s confession. The petition will be presented by the Chairwoman, Urszula Augustyn. Please, Chairwoman.
Urszula Augustyn: Thank you very much. This petition has attracted considerable interest, because I can see that additional people are continuing to sign it on the website. By mid-March, 13,500 people had already signed it. The petition proposes introducing a generally applicable legal ban on hearing the confessions of children under 18 in the Catholic Church and other churches, if they also engage in this practice. In recommending this solution, the petition’s authors rely on the argument—and this is also the basis of their justification—that they want to protect children from situations and conduct that may pose a threat to their well-being. This is, of course, explained in great detail in the petition, and its authors refer to various effects that confession may have on a young person when it is not adapted to their psychological capacities related to age, and so on.
Therefore, it is worth emphasizing that the petition’s authors aim to protect the child’s welfare, but the child’s welfare is broadly developed and specifically defined in Polish law. The constitutional basis for child protection in the Polish legal system is, of course, the constitutional principle expressed in Article 70 of the Constitution, which states that the Republic of Poland ensures the protection of children’s rights; everyone has the right to demand that a public authority protect a child from violence, cruelty, exploitation and demoralization. A child deprived of parental care has the right to care and assistance from public authorities; when determining a child’s rights, public authorities and people responsible for the child are obliged to listen to the child and, where possible, take their opinion into account.
The law defines the powers and method of appointing the Ombudsman for Children. In this regard, we are truly one of the first countries to provide protection at such a high level. The Ombudsman for Children does not operate in every country; on the contrary, even EU countries have drawn on the Polish example when creating similar institutions. Thus, every violation of a child’s welfare or harm to a child, regardless of who commits it—a parent, guardian, teacher, doctor, priest, coach or anyone else—and regardless of the circumstances, can happen. Every such violation of children’s rights should meet with an appropriate response, prevention, investigation and punishment. This is precisely the role of state authorities. I also want to emphasize that there is a legal obligation to notify law-enforcement authorities of a crime committed against a child in matters concerning the protection of children’s rights and welfare. Many public entities have special obligations here, including institutions and authorities that work with or care for children every day, as well as those that monitor compliance with the law, such as the police. I also mean social-assistance authorities, schools and health-care facilities.
All of them should be strongly involved and should not be indifferent to what is happening to a child. I also wanted to recall the special role of the Ombudsman for Children, because, as I said, in our system the Ombudsman for Children participates in many cases connected with protecting children’s rights. When these cases reach the level of court proceedings or interventions, the interventions of the Ombudsman for Children have a long tradition here and are carried out very well. I wanted to mention the period when Marek Michalak was Ombudsman for Children, but I also hope that this is happening in exactly the same way now. Thus, the institution of the Ombudsman for Children is active and present. Crucial to today’s discussion of whether the demand contained in this petition is justified, and whether it should be elevated to the level of an act or other legal regulation, is also the fact that the Constitution contains the principle of freedom of conscience and religion. Everyone is guaranteed freedom of conscience and religion. This is Article 53 of the Constitution. Freedom of religion includes the freedom to profess or accept a religion of one’s choice and to express one’s religion individually or together with others, publicly or privately, through worship, prayer, participation in rites, practice and teaching.
Parents have this right, because they are responsible for raising their children according to the principles and rules they consider appropriate. However, there are many other contexts to the demand contained in this petition. Among other things, I would like to point out that religious freedom in our country—which is essentially sacred—should also involve, to put it as precisely as possible, a great deal of responsibility and logic in action. By responsibility, I mean that if we say parents have the right to raise their child according to their own convictions, they should also pay attention to what they expose the child to, what they force the child to do, and what they propose to the child. This is ultimately the parents’ responsibility if it crosses the boundaries of common sense.
Then other authorities intervene. I mention this because the topic proposed by the authors of this petition is important. It must not be ignored. The simplest solution that comes to mind is that, given that parents have the right to raise their child as they see fit, we should end the matter there; that is, the state should not enter the sphere of religion by passing a law saying that this or that is forbidden. It would be very difficult—truly very difficult—to write and formulate a provision stating that one may or may not ask certain things. I am trying to speak about this delicately in order to draw attention to the fact that church communities should also consider whether the proposals they make are appropriate for children’s ages. This is an area for debate and agreements between church communities and individual denominations—we are talking about different denominations—as well as parents and teachers. This really should prompt discussion in these communities. However, I think—or rather, I am certain of what I want to say—that introducing statutory regulation here would go too far, because it is neither simple nor easy, nor, in my view, possible.
I have pointed to the many legal aspects of child protection so that it is clear that our system is structured in such a way that children really can be effectively protected, provided that all adults pay attention and are not indifferent. Thank you.
Rafał Bochenek: Thank you very much, Chairwoman. Esteemed colleagues, we are opening the discussion. Are there any government representatives who would like to speak on this matter? I see none. So, not a report—but, no, but the Ministry of the Interior and Administration also deals with matters concerning religious organizations. Please, I understand that the MP has asked to speak. Yes, please.
Marcin Józefaciuk:: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, esteemed colleagues, we should consider what the real purpose of confession is. Is its purpose to find out what is happening in the homes of individual believers, or is it genuine absolution of sins? And to what extent is it absolution of sins, or merely an illusory absolution? Is it teaching a child that they can go to the confessional and confess every sin? We must also note that the child is sent by the parents and will often go against their will, or perhaps go simply to avoid upsetting their parents, and say what they have to say. I think that, when considering this petition, we should also examine the extent to which confessors are trained in psychological assistance for both adults and children. I am not referring to any particular religion or church, because confession does not occur only in one church or denomination, but in many denominations. This is not in any way a fight against any denomination; it concerns something broader.
It concerns something more important than fighting anyone. We should examine the extent to which confessors are trained to provide psychological assistance to both adults and children, because this petition repeatedly raises the issue of the psychological health and well-being of minors. We know that in courts there are procedures in which parents remain with their children; here, the child is very often shut in a dark room together with another person. It is also worth considering whether there is a way to assess the emotional maturity of the person whose confession is being heard. This is a very serious problem. There is, of course, psychological pressure, inducing guilt and so on. In my view, the petition is worth at least considering and debating. As a committee, we are not the appropriate expert committee for this, because I understand that the Constitution and successive acts of law do protect children’s rights. However, children’s rights are very often overlooked in matters concerning religious denominations, including this case.
As for confession, I understand freedom of religion and freedom of belief, but children’s rights are very often overlooked, even in the case of baptism. I believe that sometimes this right is violated and no one does anything about it. Therefore, it is worth discussing the extent to which going to confession is the child’s own choice and to what extent it is not. As for the obligation to report abuse, we know that sometimes it simply does not work. I think that was the basic intention of the person who submitted this petition. That person is apparently not in the room. In any event, since the chairwoman has not yet made a recommendation, I think that, if I may suggest it, the petition should be sent to the Committee on Children and Youth, or perhaps to an expert committee that would be able to initiate a discussion on the subject. The discussion is very important in order to identify and develop certain steps that could be taken. Of course, this would also require changes, as we are moving toward international laws and so on.
Perhaps this could simply create space for dialogue with religious organizations. Thank you.
Rafał Bochenek: Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to speak? Please, MP Izabela Bodnar.
Izabela Bodnar: Madam Chairwoman, Esteemed Committee, I would briefly like to support what my fellow MP has just said. I believe that there is a problem here, while of course showing great respect for faith and for our personal convictions in this area. In my view, this ceremony is somewhat archaic and often harms children, because a priest is frequently not qualified, goes too far and instills a sense of guilt in the child. We know what a major psychological problem children face in Poland today. They have unlimited access to information, are often subjected to hate, and this often leads to violence at school. If parents additionally send a child to confession and the child emerges from it even more confused and with a sense of guilt, I believe this is a subject worth addressing. Bringing it into the public sphere for discussion and debate, even simply highlighting the problem, may already improve the situation in some way. However, I realize that this is a difficult subject to process legislatively. Thank you.
Rafał Bochenek: Please, MP Rusecka.
Urszula Rusecka: Thank you very much. Yes, this is a difficult matter to process, which is why I will support rejecting the petition. Confession is one of the sacraments that is very important to Catholics, and we cannot take away parents’ right to raise their children in the Catholic faith and according to the values in which they want their children to be raised. The state cannot barge into areas that genuinely do not fall within its competence. As for the problems children face, they result precisely from the fact that children are raised without any values or proper protection, raised according to “do whatever you want,” and then the consequences follow. Therefore, I believe that this petition is unfounded and I will move for its rejection. Thank you.
Rafał Bochenek: Thank you very much. MP Mieszkowski.
Krzysztof Mieszkowski: I did not really intend to speak, but given the MP’s radical position, I want to say that, living in a Judeo-Christian culture, we operate in a space of a different kind of punishment. This axiological paradigm is highly debatable. Today, looking at this from the perspective of what we could define as a religiously neutral state, what is written in Article 25 of the Constitution means that the right to profess a religion and participate in religious rituals is also a constitutional right and absolutely cannot be questioned. In that sense, it is also a choice. However, confession has for many years been the subject of various debates, and it became a very serious problem within the Church when it turned out that the Church is, or can be, an extremely violent institution. Therefore, the question is this.
Rafał Bochenek: Please do not insult people with factually unsupported invectives.
Krzysztof Mieszkowski: Yes, please do not interrupt.
Rafał Bochenek: Please stick to the point and avoid attacks.
Krzysztof Mieszkowski: I am not interested in your value system at this moment, I am very sorry.
Rafał Bochenek: I know you are not interested. You are interested only in the tip of your own nose.
Krzysztof Mieszkowski: Excuse me, I am not speaking in the plural; I am here as an individual, so please do not use forms of address that are inappropriate to the subject of the matter, namely me. Voices have repeatedly been raised about a situation in which the Church has been an element of violence. We must of course prevent this, and the state has much to say on the matter. Therefore, we must regulate the culture of a secular or open state in some way. There is no reason to question the reflections contained in this petition either. Thank you very much.
Rafał Bochenek: Thank you very much. If I may respond, Chairwoman, I will of course give you the floor in a moment, as the person who has studied this petition most deeply. But what you said is anti-culture, not culture. Christianity is a religion and a set of values embodying joy, love, respect and tolerance toward one’s fellow human beings. Christianity is also the foundation of our civilization. Just look at where the countries built on Roman Catholic culture are today, and where states built on an entirely different system of values are, in terms of development, social relations, women’s rights and women’s safety. Follow this through, because you often speak about these matters while unfortunately contradicting yourselves. Therefore, I completely disagree with the claims made here solely for the purpose of gradually pursuing a policy of weakening a particular social group—in this case Catholics. We have also seen attacks on churches endorsed by politicians from your political camp. So, if you speak about tolerance, finally become credible. Do not expect anyone to tolerate aggression and vulgarity from you. If you speak about tolerance, start implementing and applying it toward the largest social group, which Christians and Catholics undoubtedly constitute in our country.
Please, Poles are Christians. Also, please, Chairwoman.
Urszula Augustyn: I was afraid that the discussion would go in this direction, and that is not good. It really is not good, because it does not serve the subject. I deliberately did not use the opinion sent to the committee by the parish branch of Catholic Action of the Archdiocese of Poznań, which is also truly scandalous. So let us leave such comments aside; let us not insult one another, but consider what really needs to be done. If there were no problems involving children and confession, no one would have written a petition. Therefore, this is a subject for discussion and an important topic. At this moment, I would like to focus on what our committee can do. The MP suggested that we send it to an expert committee, but there is no such expert committee, and that is our difficulty. If some communities want to address this topic, want to discuss it—and indeed should discuss it—then they should do so.
They should, indeed. Our committee cannot do this, but debates are certainly needed. I would like to use the summary written by an expert from the Sejm’s Office of Expertise and Regulatory Impact Assessment. It seems to me that the expert expressed this very clearly and precisely—whether it was a male or female expert, I do not remember; I apologize. “Under the provisions cited in this analysis, no one, not even parents, may force a child to participate or not participate in confession. The role of the state in this area is to create mechanisms ensuring that a child can exercise their freedom of conscience and religion in a manner corresponding to their psychological development. It must be recognized that this is an extremely difficult task.”
Some representatives of legal doctrine even point out that it is impossible to subject this complex problem to detailed legal regulation, and enforcing such provisions would be problematic. In my statement, I specifically pointed out that Polish law contains many instruments that protect children. This is very important to me. Our responsibility now is how we act toward the Church—not only the Catholic Church—and toward parents who are responsible or less responsible. You know perfectly well that a great deal of bad things also happen in families. Shifting the emphasis entirely to the right or entirely to the left, and insulting one another, will achieve nothing. I am very pleased that this subject has been raised, because the relevant social groups should discuss it, and everyone should consider how to adapt the methods used so that they are appropriate for a given child. But let us not say that a child is badly raised simply because they do not go to confession. Really, no. So, ladies and gentlemen, a little more tolerance and a little more calm.
I believe we are not able to act here through legislation. Let me return once more to the petition. The petition demands—and its authors demand—that we enact provisions introducing a ban in Poland on hearing the confessions of children under 18 in the churches listed. I believe we should not write such a ban. However, this is the task of our committee. In my own name, as the rapporteur for this petition, I recommend that you reject the demand contained in it. This does not close the subject at all. But now the responsible people and communities moved by this petition should begin a debate. That would be a good starting point. And an appeal to everyone else: let us not be indifferent when a child is being harmed; let us try to respond. Thank you.
Rafał Bochenek: Thank you, Chairwoman. Ladies and gentlemen, the state should not regulate every sphere so extensively, because there are regulations that operate at the constitutional level. Above all, parents should be responsible for raising their children and shaping their convictions. Article 48 of the Constitution clearly states that parents have the right to raise their children in accordance with their own convictions. This upbringing should take into account the child’s degree of maturity, as well as their freedom of conscience and religion and their convictions. We know perfectly well that there are also appropriate state institutions with the tools to act when any irregularities or abuse occur in one matter or another. Therefore, introducing an even stronger regulation and tying parents’ hands when it comes to raising their children would be a major abuse and simply contrary to the Polish Constitution.
Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? Please, MP Polak.
Piotr Polak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Esteemed Committee, Ladies and gentlemen. I share the views of both the chairman and the chairwoman. The right to holy confession—or, more broadly, penance—is not an obligation but a right, and the people responsible for small children, namely their parents, decide whether they want it or not. State interference in matters of faith would go much too far. I think that, as the Chairwoman suggested, we should reject this petition. Thank you.
Rafał Bochenek: Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to speak? I see no one. So there is a recommendation that we reject the petition and do not accept the demand contained in it. Does anyone wish to object to this resolution? The male MPs have raised an objection, so we will vote. By cards or...? By hand? Okay. Good. Ladies and gentlemen, before we start the system, it will take a moment, so we will vote by hand. Who is in favor of rejecting the petition and not accepting the demand contained in it?
Who is against? Who abstained? Eight votes in favor of rejection, two against and none abstaining. The petition has therefore been rejected.