The recent Polish demonstrations interpreted as defending John Paul II drew sharp criticism from Tomasz Terlikowski, who argued that the rhetoric used by some participants did not align with Christian and evangelical language. Terlikowski commented on the marches through his social media, noting that what was presented as a defense of the pope often addressed broader church leadership and established structures rather than the pope himself.
Observing the events, Terlikowski suggested the message, even when it carried sincere faith, was largely self-referential. He observed that the act appeared to defend current church leadership and a status quo where voices that dissent do not seem to count. In his view, the acts and symbols of the day tended to protect the image of the institution rather than to honor the pope’s holiness in a way that would withstand scrutiny or invite constructive dialogue. This perspective aimed to separate intent from outcome, acknowledging the diverse beliefs of participants while questioning the broader impact of the messaging. [citation: wPolityce]
Terlikowski also criticized the choice of song performed during the gatherings. He identified a line commonly associated with controversy, which he described as coming from someone who has faced serious accusations. He argued that, out of respect for all involved, as well as for truth, this song should not be repeated if it causes pain to victims or those who carry its emotional burden. The point, in his view, was not to censor art but to consider the hurt it can cause within the public square. [citation: wPolityce]
Another point raised by Terlikowski concerned Archbishop Józef Michalik. He noted that Mass at the Warsaw march was celebrated by the retired archbishop, a figure who had previously become a focal point of controversy for remarks about children and responsibility for pedophilia. Terlikowski recalled the archbishop’s public apology and the long-standing debate over how the church should address past cases, including those tied to Tylawa. The discussion around these issues reflects the ongoing tension between relics of the church’s authority and the demand for accountability. [citation: wPolityce]
Terlikowski argued that the language used to defend well-known church figures was not, in his assessment, authentically Christian or evangelical. He warned that questioning the actions of Karol Wojtyła and John Paul II could be interpreted by some as participation in a broader, hostile campaign against Poland itself. He criticized the use of militaristic rhetoric that demanded conformity and excluded dissent, arguing that such a stance does not align with gospel values. In his view, true church openness requires welcoming questions and embracing a space of empathy and solidarity, rather than enforcing silence or punishment for dissent. [citation: wPolityce]
“Barka” and “cream buns”
Terlikowski extended his critique to other elements of the pope narrative, expressing disappointment with the public consumption of memes and institutional symbolism. He suggested that popular motifs like the line between a beloved pet and a pastry tradition, when amplified by large organizations, risk shaping memory in ways that memorialize John Paul II as a mere symbol rather than a living influence. Such depictions could transform him into a party emblem rather than a figure remembered for his broader spiritual legacy. The publicist warned that this trend might domesticate the pope into entertainment propaganda, diminishing the depth and seriousness of his historical role. [citation: wPolityce]
According to Terlikowski, these developments mark a troubling metamorphosis in his stance as a public commentator. What began as a defense of church values appeared to him to drift toward participation in campaigns critical of St. John Paul II. The shift illustrates a larger conversation about how religious figures are portrayed in media narratives and how such portrayals influence public memory. [citation: wPolityce]
For readers seeking additional context, see related commentary by Jan Filip Libicki, who offered his own perspective on Terlikowski’s remarks as a pointed, ironic critique aimed at the public figure discussed here. [citation: wPolityce]
Source: wPolityce