Cardinal Dziwisz denies knowledge of priest's abuse in Kraków court, plaintiff demands 20 million PLN

Background

Janusz Szymik, now an adult, alleges he was sexually abused by priest Jan W. (Jan Wodniak) from 1984 to 1989 while serving as a 12-year-old altar boy in the parish of Międzybrodzie Bialskie. The priest was criminally convicted; the trial began in 2014 and a final judgment was issued in 2017. In mid-June 2026, Szymik filed a civil lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Kraków and the parish, seeking 20 million PLN in damages.

Dziwisz's court appearance

Cardinal Stanisław Dziwisz, the former metropolitan of Kraków and personal secretary to Pope John Paul II for 27 years, testified before the Kraków District Court on August 3, 2026. He had been summoned twice earlier but did not appear, citing illness and a pre-planned trip to the Vatican. Judge Monika Szczepaniec-Czech presided. Dziwisz's testimony lasted nearly an hour. He stated he only "recognized" priest Wodniak because he knew all priests in the archdiocese, but had no personal or social contacts. He emphasized his long absence in Rome and said he did not know how Wodniak became secretary to Cardinal Franciszek Macharski.

“For 27 years I was the pope's secretary in the Vatican and I was not interested, because I had no way, in what was happening in the diocese, because I had other matters due to my function.”

He claimed he first learned of the abuse from the press only recently, and heard about the priest's "indecent behavior" in 2022. Regarding a 2012 letter from the late priest Tadeusz Isakowicz-Zaleski that urged intervention, Dziwisz said it was forwarded to the Holy See and contained only a few sentences about Wodniak, without mentioning Szymik's name. He also said he learned about Wodniak's SB collaboration only about a week ago.

Disputed knowledge and evidence

Szymik's lawyers argue Dziwisz knew about the abuse much earlier. They presented archival photographs showing Dziwisz and Wodniak on vacation together in the 1980s. Dziwisz denied being on the beach with the priest, suggesting he might have been with seminarians and it was hard to identify people after 50 years.

“I was not on the beach with priest W., but maybe when I was with seminarians, he could have been bathing there too. This is a surprising question after 50 years.”

Dziwisz also claimed Szymik called him to arrange a meeting with a lawyer, which he refused. Szymik denied ever calling, stating he does not have the cardinal's phone number and that phone records would prove it.

“That is not true. Phone records can be checked.”

Szymik believes Dziwisz has substantial knowledge about Wodniak and sought to minimize his role. He called Dziwisz's testimony "another untruth" and said the cardinal contradicted his earlier statements. The late Isakowicz-Zaleski had previously asserted that in 2012 he personally handed Dziwisz documents about the Szymik case, and Dziwisz said he would handle it.

“We sat in his office, he looked through it in my presence, commented on some matters and said he would take care of it.”

A letter from Isakowicz-Zaleski dated April 24, 2012, was discovered in the Curia archives in December 2020.

The SB collaboration and state liability

During the hearing, the Archdiocese's lawyers filed a motion to add the State Treasury as a co-defendant. They argued that priest Wodniak was a registered secret collaborator of the communist Security Service (SB), and the SB, aware of his sexual crimes, used him for blackmail instead of prosecuting him. The lawyers contended that the People's Republic of Poland, through the SB, bears co-responsibility for failing to stop the abuse. The court has not yet ruled on the motion.

The trial continues.