The debates surrounding the assaults on Saint John Paul II and Poland’s response to the ensuing media campaign sparked a fierce exchange on the program Gość Wiadomości on TVP Info. Two contrasting viewpoints were aired by Beata Maciejewska of New Left and Paweł Lisiecki of PiS.
As the anniversary of JPII approaches, many recall the pontificate with deep memories and feelings. People take to the streets, sometimes driven by the sense that this era holds significant meaning for them, Maciejewska observed.
Her stance was clear. If troubling facts come to light, she argued, those issues must be confronted openly. As a leftist, she said, one should stand on the side of the victims and against the oppressors, while acknowledging that clarifications are needed on many points.
Maciejewska asserted that John Paul II knew some very troubling things were happening within the Church, yet she claimed he did not side with those harmed, but rather with the perpetrators, which she framed as the central problem.
Beata Lewandowska, the moderator, challenged that claim, stating that it cannot be accepted as a blanket assertion.
When asked on what basis the left’s MP presents her case, Maciejewska replied that her argument rests on the existence of books and statements suggesting that John Paul II was aware of the issues at hand. Lewandowska pressed for the materials supporting such claims.
Response from the PiS MP
Paweł Lisiecki offered a markedly different tone. As a representative of the right, he insisted that truth should guide every stance, regardless of the outcome. He acknowledged that the material on the program contained elements of truth but argued that it did not present the full picture. He criticized the editor for what he called a selective treatment of matters related to pedophilia among some priests, and he noted that certain aspects involving Cardinal Karol Wojtyła had not been disclosed.
According to Lisiecki, the reaction of a large portion of society to the TVN material reflected widespread disagreement with manipulation or deceit. He also responded to Maciejewska’s remarks by pointing to past accusations against leftist politicians for violent behavior toward women, stressing that the left is often entangled in such claims. He urged historians to undertake a careful analysis of the report and rejected the notion that the Catholic Church is entangled in defending pedophiles, noting his own Catholic faith and stance on the issue.
Lisiecki recalled the Marek Lisiński case, describing one priest as wrongly accused because the accused had not provided funds, and labeling the man a fraud. He added that this episode should be examined thoroughly rather than simplified into broad judgments.
On the matter of Saint John Paul II, Lisiecki argued that the attack is not aimed at the pope as a person but at what he taught. He emphasized that freedom should not mean arbitrariness and that the pope did not back slogans like do what you want. Instead, he stood with a sense of responsibility. If the pope had supported abortion rights or same sex marriage, the left would likely celebrate instead of criticizing. Because he preached responsible freedom, he faced backlash in public discourse.
Source references include TVP Info and wPolityce. This complex debate highlights how interpretations of church leadership and historical memory continue to polarize public opinion in Poland.