Polish bishops break ranks over abuse commission reset
Two bishops have distanced themselves from changes to a planned independent commission.
Two Polish bishops broke ranks Tuesday after the bishops’ conference announced changes to plans to establish a national independent abuse commission.
Bishop Artur Ważny of Sosnowiec and Kraków auxiliary Bishop Damian Muskus distanced themselves June 17 from the decision to overhaul the team leading the project, made at the bishops’ plenary meeting in Katowice last week.
Archbishop Wojciech Polak, the Polish bishops’ point man on abuse, will no longer oversee the initiative, which was first announced in March 2023 but has made little progress due to disagreements among the bishops over the commission’s nature, scope, and financing.
Abuse survivor advocates sharply criticized the announcement, which has prompted protests in which lay people reportedly leave stones inscribed with biblical quotations in front of curia buildings.
Ważny, who created Poland’s first diocesan independent abuse commission in 2024, told the Catholic weekly magazine Gość Niedzielny he was “surprised, bitter, and sad” at the bishops’ change of course on the independent commission.
He said that after taking part in a landmark meeting between Polish bishops and abuse survivors in November 2024, he hoped the commission would be established by the end of 2025. But he said it became clear at a bishops’ plenary meeting in March this year that this was unrealistic.
“Establishing such a commission is not that easy. The examples of France or other countries are not entirely adequate,” he said.
“I myself established a similar commission with a slightly larger area of activity and I know that it requires time and attention to many legal, disciplinary, moral, and social aspects.”
He added: “Unfortunately, expectations are high and understandably so. The perseverance of many, especially the victims in many cases, has already ended. All the more so because we had hoped that we were already close.”
“For me, the matter of setting up a commission really seemed like a matter of months. Given the experience in my diocese and the work that the appointed commissions do, I know that this is the only way to stand in the truth, to face the darkness of evil, and to try at least to make amends for the suffering of the victims and to prepare solutions for the future.”
In a June 17 social media post, Kraków auxiliary Bishop Damian Muskus also expressed disappointment at the change.
In a message entitled “I still believe,” Muskus noted that he did not attend the June 10-12 plenary meeting in Katowice, where the change was approved. But he said that, nevertheless, he could not “escape the burden of responsibility for the decisions made in Katowice.”
“I still believe that the process that has begun cannot be stopped, and that sooner or later a commission will be established that will present and describe the phenomenon of the abuse of minors by clergy,” he wrote.
“Today, all I can do is assure my closeness to those whose faith in the efficient establishment of the commission has been seriously shaken.”
In March 2023, amid rising abuse claims, the Polish bishops unanimously decided to create a team, led by Archbishop Polak, to draw up a blueprint for an independent abuse commission. The decision followed a controversial documentary alleging Pope John Paul II covered up abuse during his tenure as Archbishop of Kraków (1964-1978).
The proposed commission would examine state and Church archives, considering legal, historical, and sociocultural contexts, following similar initiatives in France, Germany, Portugal, and Spain. In June 2023, the bishops voted to establish the commission, focusing on the period from 1945 to its creation.
In May 2024, clerical abuse survivors urged the bishops’ conference to set a precise launch date for the commission, leading to the meeting between survivors and bishops in November 2024.
But in February 2025, the bishops’ legal council issued a critical opinion on the commission’s draft operating principles, questioning the legitimacy of the June 2023 vote due to procedural issues, such as the lack of prior notice and a written resolution. The council also raised concerns about the commission’s investigative nature, its potential to question bishops, and its possible conflict with Vatican authority over senior churchmen.
Despite these objections, Archbishop Polak emphasized that the legal council’s opinion was non-binding and rejected claims that the commission would interrogate bishops.
At a March 2025 plenary assembly in Warsaw, the bishops reaffirmed the necessity of the commission, stressing its historical and interdisciplinary focus. They called for further consultations with male and female religious bodies to refine the draft principles.
At a June plenary meeting, the bishops decided that the project would be entrusted to Bishop Sławomir Oder, a canon lawyer best known for serving as the postulator of Pope John Paul II’s canonization cause.
They thanked Polak and his team of experts, which they said had “completed its activity.”
Polak does not appear to have commented publicly on the change as of press time.
To be frank, the bishops do not need a independent commission to be trustworthy and especially should not take guidance from the pro-homosexual, pro-women ordination Western European bishops on what they should do.
I personally don't think Archbishop Polak was the best bishop to lead this initiative. Meanwhile, Bishop Oder is renowned for both his orthodoxy and his precision, but especially in his way of investigating the issues of how Cardinal Wojtyła, before he was elected Pope John Paul II, handled sexual abuse cases against priests in his Archdiocese. He does not support the all or nothing approach of most Western bishops, where they either allowed homosexual priests to get away with every hideous crime or removed every single priest who was accused, whether they were guilty or not.
Bishop Oder will investigate every case and determine who was likely guilty and therefore should be exposed publicly and in which cases the evidence was poor and therefore the accused priests should not be defamed. This is a much more difficult, but much more just process than the American bishops' tendency to support simply publishing the names of every single accused priest alive or dead (therefore unable to defend his good name) and being happy that the secular press applauded them. The Polish bishops want to be correct, not popular.
I was always trained in business ethics and compliance that if something can be *PERCEIVED* as a conflict of interest, it should be investigated as such. Reflexively appointing the postulator of Pope John Paul II’s canonization cause as the head of this investigative body amid open questions of how Cardinal Woytila responded to and managed accusations can certainly be *PERCEIVED* as a potential conflict of interest. But as always since a dead saint can’t defend himself, the church revises the problem statement, reconstitutes the investigative body, and kicks the can on methodically and systemically finding truth.