Pope’s visit to Poland a watershed

Press, 16 June 1983, Page 16

Pope’s visit to Poland a watershed

By

ROGER BOYES,

of “The Times,” in Warsaw

About the time that Karl Marx was worrying about the decline of capitalism, the Polish playwright, Zygmunt Krasinski, had some semi-prophetic things to say about the future relationship between Communists and Catholics and his homeland.

“Perhaps a Communist society really is the highest goal towards which the history of the world inclines: but for it not to become the most terrible irony, the most lunatic despotism, it must come at a time when the light of Christ turns everyone into a saint,” he wrote.

General Jaruzelski, the Polish leader, seems to have taken Krasinski’s counsel to heart, for it is difficult otherwise to see why he is going ahead with the Papal visit that promises new strength to the Church and new vitality to the fatigued Solidarity opposition, and offers nothing but high risks and political uncertainty to the Government.

Pope John Paul will fly to Warsaw as a Pole returning to Poland and as the Catholic leader paying tribute to holy shrines—but also as a political tactician, aware of his ability to evoke the strongest political emotions.

His last visit four years ago planted the seed of self-confidence among the workers and effectively spawned the Solidarity revolution.

It created a sense of renewal, afeeling that change in Poland had to come from within Poles themselves and could not be imposed from above.

There was a widespread revulsion against Communist privilege and incompetence, and the slogans became ’‘self-government” and “self-management.”

This time the effects of the visit will probably be less dramatic but may well be more lasting and fundamental than the 16 months of Solidarity.

There will be an unleashing of great energy—but where will it go? Who will exploit it? Who is capable of controlling it?

The Catholic Church is, of course, the immediate beneficiary of the Papal visit.

Since the Pope last visited Poland, the Church has gone through important internal changes, above all the selection of a new Primate, Cardinal Jozef Glemp.

It is unfortunate that the changes coincided with the imposi-

tion of martial law for they made the Church leadership often seem mealy-mouthed and irresolute. Since the death of Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski, power has flowed from the post of Primate and Poland's other bishops as represented by the Episcopate. This is the correct balance under canon law, but it has not served Poland as well as it could have done since General Jaruzelski declared martial law 18 months ago. The result has been that the Government could reject Church calls for dialogue with Solidarity, for the full lifting of martial law, and for an amnesty of political prisoners. Church advisers say they have learned two things from their dealings with the authorities. The first is that they are always keen to negotiate when they are in a position of political weakness and want to mobilise popular support: when this weakness turns into a simulacrum of strength, the attitude rapidly changes and the priests have to duck for cover.

The second lesson is that the Communists, having realised that concerted secularisation of Polish society is impossible, are content to divide and rule—setting priests against bishops, bishops against bishops—to neutralise the Church politically.

The Pope can thus play an incisive role. By going to Poland when the Government is in a state of debility, he can strengthen the Church leadership so that it can again press effectively for social concessions.

So far, Church victories have been limited to their own sectional interests. For example, a bill will be presented soon regulating Church-State relations and anchoring the position of the Church in Polish society.

Even these victories have been somewhat reduced by the crass behaviour of people—one can only assume them to be security officials—who break into churches and beat up lay Catholic workers on holy ground.

The Pope will again give legitimacy to a more concerted “human rights” offensive by the Church.

Lech Walesa, who is expected to meet the Pope, and the underground leadership of Solidarity also support the Papal visit.

The radicals who once argued that it would be more effective to

force the Government to cancel the trip, and thus expose its weakness, have now fallen in with this line, some only grudgingly. The question in the underground leadership is how to exploit the occasion. demonstrating to millions in the West that Solidarity not only lives and has Papal support,’ but to do so without debasing the visit and alienating a section of believers. These are short-term technical problems. In the long term, the opposition—as expressed in a recent underground article by Stefan Bratkowski. a dissident journal-ist-must aim at persuading a section of the establishment that radical change is urgently needed. The people, with a sympathetic segment of the political elite, could, he believes, transform Poland. The Pope plays a part in this, because he is a concrete sign that the Church is a permanent feature in Poland, and that change should be carried out in a way that benefits the majority of people. In all of this, the Government’s motivation remains obscure. Of course, the Pope is also the head of the Vatican State and thus the first Western leader to visit Poland since the imposition of martial law. That may be enough to persuade the West to ease sanctions, yet nothing is likely to shift in the West until the end of martial law, and that may well not come until the end of the year. So far, the trip has caused nothing but aggravation. Moscow and Prague seem to be irritable about it and this irritation is communicating itself to the hardliners in the Polish Communist Party who are, in turn, criticising the Jaruzelski line, or at least those “liberal Marxists” who support him. General Jaruzelski’s main gain from this national energy will be the end of the apathy paralysing his economic reforms and crippling productivity.

In the manner of Krasinski— Communism through sainthood—he seems to believe that the good will of Poles is essential to his plans for limited reform.

This is difficult to understand in Moscow and Prague where they see only problems for their own Church-State relations and where, in their own way, they have managed to survive for decades without such luxuries as popular support.