St. John Paul II, circa 1992. / L’Osservatore Romano.
CNA Newsroom, Dec 7, 2022 / 08:00 am (CNA).
Journalists investigating secular and Catholic Church sources in Poland have called into question allegations by a Dutch writer that St. John Paul II “covered up” sexual abuse while still a bishop in Poland.
On Dec. 2, Ekke Overbeek, a journalist from the Netherlands living in Poland, said he had found “concrete cases of priests abusing children in the Archdiocese of Krakow, where the future pope was archbishop. The future pope knew about it and transferred them anyway, which led to new victims.”
Overbeek referred to the case of the priest Eugeniusz Surgent and “many others” whom Karol Wojtyla allegedly “covered up.”
The Dutch publication NOS, in which Overbeek’s statements appeared, reported the journalist spent three years combing “Polish archives.”
“Almost all documents collected directly about Wojtyla have been destroyed. However, in other surviving documents, he is mentioned very often. And if you put them all together, they are pieces of a puzzle that give a picture of how he dealt with it,” the writer stated, without saying which archives he was referring to.
Polish journalists Tomasz Krzyżak and Piotr Litka of Rzeczpospolita published an investigation that countered Overbeek’s accusations, stating St. John Paul II did not cover up any abuse and consistently acted against such cases during his time as archbishop of Krakow from 1964 to 1978.
The reporters point out that the priest in question, Surgent, was not from the Archdiocese of Krakow but from the Diocese of Lubaczów.
As archbishop of Krakow, the then Cardinal Karol Wojtyla made several decisions concerning Surgent, they explained, “within his competencies, leaving the final word on possible sanctioning of the priest to his ordinary, the bishop of Lubaczów.”
The journalists added that “the then archbishop of Krakow could not do anything about the fact that Surgent was working in two other dioceses.”
The Polish reporters also referred to another incident that illustrated how Cardinal Wojtyla at the time dealt with abuse, namely the case of priest Józef Loranc, who was accused of sexually abusing young girls.
“The absence of punitive measures by the ecclesiastical court does not cancel the crime and does not undo the guilt,” Cardinal Wojtyla wrote in a 1971 letter to Loranc after he was released from prison.
For Krzyżak and Litka, “this behavior” of the later Pope John Paul II “differs considerably from the practice of leniency toward those who had committed such crimes, which was common at the time.”
In the case of Loranc, a priest of the Archdiocese of Krakow until his death in 1992, “Cardinal Wojtyla made immediate decisions in accordance with canon law. And while he gradually lifted canonical penalties and showed great mercy, he remained ever vigilant,” the journalists wrote.
When Cardinal Wojtyla learned of the case in 1970, his decision came just days after learning of the accusations against Loranc.
In a letter, the future Pope John Paul II stated that the accused priest was “suspended” and “could not exercise any priestly function” and would have to “live in the monastery for a certain period of time and make a retreat and receive help.”
The journalists said that Wojtyla “made all the necessary decisions at that moment: the quick removal of the priest from the parish, the suspension until the matter was resolved, and the obligation to live in a monastery,” where civil authorities then arrested him.
The case did not reach the Vatican, they said, because the provision directing what is now the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith — then the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — to deal with abuse cases was not issued until 2001.
Although he was eventually allowed to celebrate Mass again, Loran could not return to the “canonical mission of catechesis of children and youth” or to the ministry of the confessional.
The Polish Bishops’ Conference, in a statement published Nov. 14, spoke of “increasingly hearing questions about John Paul II’s attitude toward the tragedy of sexual abuse of minors and vulnerable people by the clergy and about his response to such crimes during his pontificate.”
“It has been increasingly alleged that the pope did not deal adequately with such acts and did little to address the problem, or even covered it up,” the statement continued.
The bishops decried these as a “media assault” on St. John Paul II and his pontificate. The target of such criticisms was “his teaching expressed, for example, in encyclicals such as Redemptor hominis or Veritatis splendor, as well as in his theology of the body, which does not correspond to contemporary ideologies promoting hedonism, relativism, and moral nihilism.”
The statement was not the first time Polish Catholic leaders responded to allegations against St. John Paul II.
In December 2020, following criticism of the Polish pope in the wake of the McCarrick report, 1,700 professors at Polish universities and research institutes signed an appeal defending St. John Paul II.
The signatories included Hanna Suchocka, Poland’s first female prime minister; former foreign minister Adam Daniel Rotfeld; physicists Andrzej Staruszkiewicz and Krzysztof Meissner; and film director Krzysztof Zanussi.
The professors’ appeal followed an intervention by Archbishop Stanisław Gądecki, president of the Polish Bishops’ Conference. In a Dec. 7, 2020, statement, Gądecki deplored what he called “unprecedented attacks” on St. John Paul II. He insisted that the pope’s “highest priority” was combating clerical abuse and protecting young people.
[…]
Most of them are heterodox leftists more interested in turning the Church into a secular NGO. Pathetic.
True.
Francis visits one more assault on the People of God. As if they need one more reason to turn from him and turn to Him. No matter how much more Francis justifies himself, many more will refuse to listen. We simply won’t hear any more. If he’s thinking of pulling out his megaphone, we suggest he fugghitaboutit. We’ve already tuned to the gospel channel which isn’t his.
Agreed
McElroy, the man best known for kicking sand on doctrines that offend modern sensibilities (and pelvises!), is now a cardinal. It’s been fairly clear for the past six years or so that Bergoglio is stacking the next conclave with men of this caliber. No surprises here, sadly.
Say Rich: Yeah, I agree. If the next Pope is like Bergoglio, I very much believe there will be a Schism
Yes, and very repulsive.
Um, McElroy? Right… Typical..a great archbishop in LA & other good, faithful candidates… But this guy… Really?
a great archbishop in LA
If Gomez is “great” then the bar is set awfully low.
Wishing the 21 new cardinals to be, God’s blessings.
Amen to that.
The homosexualization of the church proceeds apace.
Is that so? Can you tell me why you consider Card Roche to be pro-homosexual? Or the Indians, South Americans and Africans in the list to be what you label them to be?
Roche and McElroy.
Sure looks like he is “stacking the deck”. Church will have a hard time recovering from this blatant power grab.
It is difficult to say who is the worst pick in this rogue’s gallery of dissidents, leftists, and homophile protectors of pederasts. But my money is on McElroy as absolutely the WORST American prelate whose name is not Cupich.
Precisely.
Typical Francis.
Ignore San Francisco and the orthodox. Promote the heterodox.
McElroy…really?
How much longer, Lord?
Outrageous that he names the most pro-choice bishop in the US a cardinal.
What a slap in the face for faithful Catholics.
McElroy and Roche? That’s the best Francis can do?
Lord, help us.
It says something that such milquetoast liberal prelates like Gomez and Dolan, let alone Chaput and Cordileone, are unacceptable to Francis. Ted McCarrick remains the most influential and powerful Catholic in America.
Looks like a crop of good shepherds and bishops to the College. Well done, San Diego.
The train wreck continues.
My money is on Cardinal Cupich as the likely next pope (not that I like the idea one bit!)
From the Papacy of Paul VI, the steady and faithful helmsman of the Barque of Saint Peter, to the election and brief papacy of the “smiling” John Paul I; from the astounding, dramatic and world altering papal period of the orthodox, secure and crystal clear, faithful teacher of the faith, John Paul II (the Great); from the timid, but courageous yet unjustly maligned, theological guru and faithful papal teacher Pope Benedict XVI (future Doctor of the Church) to the present state of utter papal and eclesial confusion…. HOW IN GOD’S NAME DID WE GET HERE??????
I believe that the confusion is concocted. The Holy Spirit, I believe, is always in charge of our Lord’s Church. Jesus assured us of that, and I do trust him.
You might want to rethink that. The confusion is not concocted, you are simply trying to defend the indefensible. Although it’s a sweeping generalization, it’s safe to say that the Holy Spirit is probably not involved in appointing progressives to positions of authority in the church.
Mal is right. If the confusion isn’t self-inflicted, it can be a stubborn unwillingness to read Pope Francis and other church documents and think for oneself. The Holy Spirit is always with the Body. One ideology or another has nothing to do with it
The Catholic Church in America that McCarrick helped build with its support of active homosexuality is still with us. The Spirit of McCarrick alive!
I was astonished to see McElroy’s elevation but shouldn’t have been. Proof that it really does pay to be a worthless servile flatterer. So glad that for logistical reasons (new installation, Covid) neither of my children had their Confirmation from him. I’m not sure it would even be valid.
Diluting the teachings of the Catholic Church certainly seems to be Francis’ goal. He has been preparing worldwide Catholics for this since his election, and making cardinals of like-minded men instead of those who would stand firm on the foundation of Christ is the means to that end. It’s too bad that he didn’t make good on his promise of a short pontificate. He has created a crisis for the Catholic Church on his own, and seems hell-bent on undermining Her. He tests the Holy Spirit.
If this is true that the Pope passed over Bishop Cordileone over his suspension of Holy Eucharist for Pelosi and chose a Bishop who supports Pro-Abortion “catholics” receiving of the Eucharist then what as the faithful are we to believe any longer? Truth is truth, Belief in the tenets of our faith are Truth, there is no grey area, there is no “walking a fine line”. Sin is sin, we are all sinners but if I have mortal sin on my soul I cannot and should not receive the Eucharist and if I pronounce my Mortal Sin, support it in word and/or action publicly I should not receive and be suspended from receiving. Where are our Cardinals our Bishops our Priests that took vows to shepherd the flock and teach them Truth. Sadly there is schism coming to our Church, it is from those who are not faithful to Church teaching and instead is simply secular, political and evil. What are we to do? Where are we to go if the successor to Peter plays games and favors that which is not good but supports evil?
It’s seriously doubtful that San Francisco excommunication had any influence at all on naming this batch of cardinals, which was probably in the works for weeks, if not months. American politics is interesting to some Americans. Likely not to the Holy Father or most any others in Rome.
I also don’t understand the bellyaching about Pope Francis “packing” the College of Cardinals. Nobody seemed to complain about it heading into the 1990s. It’s a feature of the office. There are no Republican Senators in Rome to clog the drain of moving governance along. Thank goodness.
So what if it has been going ‘along for months’?
The difference in the ‘90’s was not having a Pope who refuses to clarify his own encyclicals and exhortations.
As a Democrat, you have a constant data stream – including a three year corrupt and fraudulent effort to bring down a sitting president from the top politicians in your Party – with your Democrats ‘clogging the drain of moving governance along’.
fake news, sir. I am a political independent and always have been. I can also read Vatican documents and find nothing “confusing” in the Holy Father’s writings. As for so-what, it kind of torpedoes the notion that naming one guy to the College is somehow an insult to other bishops, be they two, four-thousand, or some number in between.
There are books written years ago that have suggested this would happen in the Church, from Clowns of God to the Final Conclave. All along with the heresy taking place in the Church in Germany, in places of So. America and certainly in the USA with Cardinals and Bishops like Cupich, Gregory, McElroy and others and then we have those prelates in power like Dolan who prefer to smile and “brush off” his brethren’s wrong teaching. Wonder why the Church is losing faithful, look no further than those who prefer to teach wrongly; wonder why some diocese and parishes are thriving look no further than their Holy Bishops and Priests who follow Christ!
David, if this is the long predicted turning point of loss of faith, apostasy we know Christ remains with us, within the faithful of the Mystical Body, as you’re aware. Were that worse case scenario to occur we’ll be strengthened by Our Lord to endure. A moment to come ever closer to Christ and to give him greater glory by our steadfast witness.
As it seems now with the Synod on Synodality, its leadership, these questionable appointments et al we’re not, at least those who are swept along – headed for a good place. Except those of us blessed with a living faith. We should, as our mission offer prayer, what we can for the many who are beguiled.
Rod Dreher sums up the 2013 fraud:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/
The most evident mark of God’s anger and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world are manifested when He permits His people to fall into the hands of clerics who are priests more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than the charity and affection of devoted shepherds. –St. John Eudes