The Governmentality of Self and Others: Cases of Homosexual Clergy in the Communist Poland

1 Introduction

The sexual revolution of the sixties in the West prompted the Apostolic See to focus more on assessing the morality of homosexuality. The Vatican condemned any homosexual intercourse.^[1] During the period of the Polish People’s Republic (1944–1989), universal ecclesial theology of sexuality was in force, although the sexual revolution happened there with less noise than in the capitalist West.^[2] Moreover, in Poland, the Church had an essential and contradictory social stance regarding the state. As the Polish primate cardinal Stefan Wyszyński and the Polish Episcopal Conference proclaimed, the Church under Communism had to defend traditional values against the influence of materialist Marxist ideology and the politics of real socialism.^[3] As a countervailing force, the Church was largely successful in these efforts. Thus, no matter what faith they professed, people (including non-heteronormative people) in communist Poland were under the ascendancy of the Church’s politics and teaching.

Moreover, the state authorities surveilled non-heteronormative citizens. Although Polish law has not criminalized homosexuality since 1932, discrimination persisted during this time. Authorities targeted non-heteronormative people through the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ politicized organs such as the Security Office (Urząd Bezpieczeństwa [UB]), the Security Service (Służba Bezpieczeństwa [SB]), and the Militia (Milicja Obywatelska [MO]), which was the national police in communist Poland. State authorities viewed homosexuality as a perversion representing a potential threat to the social order.^[4] Agents of the Security Service collected potentially embarrassing information about gay individuals and then used it to blackmail them into disclosing personal details and actions of people with anti-government views. Usually, the state collected data in actions targeting an individual for blackmail. The exception was Operation Hyacinth on November 15–16, 1985 and repeated one and two years later, when the state gathered extensive individual and cumulative data on gays and lesbians. Because of the significant influence of Catholicism, bringing personal data and information about non-heteronormative sexual activities into public discourse posed a threat to LGBT+ people’s social standing.^[5] The threat of such a risk was to have a particular impact on Catholic priests recognized by state organs as homosexuals, because priests represented the Church which condemned same-sex sexual activity.^[6]

Currently, there are no scientific publications completely dedicated to the issue of gay priests in Poland during the Communism period. Researchers have studied related cases of non-heteronormative people, for instance writers and poets.^[7] Researchers have examined non-heteronormative motifs in the Polish literature and art from the communist era.^[8] Furthermore, the literature also contains discourse analyses of sexuality and gender among Catholics in the Polish People’s Republic.^[9] Finally, historians mention that Polish communist agents threatened to slander individual priests for homosexuality to force them to cooperate as secret informants.^[10] However, there is no detailed research on this topic.

In this article, I’ll examine documents concerning two clergymen, i.e., Henryk Gulbinowicz and a priest I refer to as James. They were under state surveillance from 1950 to 1985 (often with breaks of several months) and identified as gay by state authorities in the 1960s. Although some historians^[11] studied Gulbinowicz’s case of communist surveillance, they did not present information about his homosexual identity in their biographical studies. Mass media reports raised this issue after reporting on his homosexual behavior.^[12] In reaction, on November 6, 2020, the Apostolic Nunciature in Poland imposed penal sanctions on Gulbinowicz as Cardinal and the Archbishop Emeritus of Wrocław in reference to (without clear confirmation) his accusation of sexual abuse of minors, homosexual acts, and collaboration with the Polish Security Service during the communist era.^[13] On the one hand, Peter Raina calls the accusations against Gulbinowicz “false.”^[14] On the other hand, Rafał Łatka claims that Gulbinowicz had secret discussions with Security Service officers for sixteen years due to concerns about revealing suspicions regarding his homosexual relationships with adults at a young age.^[15] According to Tadeusz Isakowicz-Zaleski, “his homosexual contacts with adults at a young age” meant “molestation of clerics and priests.”^[16] I evaluate Łatka and Isakowicz-Zaleski position on the Gulbinowicz as correct because they are supported by the source evidence. Simultaneously, I note that his homosexual contacts with adults at a young age included molestation of men not only (adepts) of the clerical state.

Considering the aforementioned scholarship, I analyzed historical sources that reference Gulbinowicz and James’s homosexual behaviors, as well as their contacts with the state and Church authorities.

2 Theoretical Perspectives

In my research, I employed the term “sexual agency.” In sociology, “agency” refers to the indispensable personal attribute that is one of the necessary values to endow an individual with “human status” in a social setting. Agency encompasses the strife to assert oneself, master the environment, and experience competence, achievement, and power.^[17] Heather Albanesi referred the issue to activities related to experiencing sexuality. Albanesi argues that sexual agency is the ability to achieve the individual’s goals in sexual life. In other words, it means making and enforcing decisions about one’s sexual life in the social, cultural, religious, and/or political contexts. Thus, Albanesi enumerates three types of sexual encounters’ negotiation: (1) active: some agentically pursue their goals in sexual encounters; (2) passive: others eschew sexual agency, exhibiting more passive behavior (passive rationale in which ones share an approach that places sexual decisions in the hands of their partners); (3) a third group manifests a dramatic shift in the type in which they negotiate sexual encounters and the goals they assertively pursue.^[18]

Moreover, “sexual agency” extends to relations with others and thus to individual’s strategy of power, namely, to exert power over oneself and others in these situations.^[19] Albanesi’s observations led me to reconstruct Gulbinowicz and James’s experience of power in the context of their contextual biographies of individuals operating in the Church and state’s networks of influence and linguistic performances, i.e. verbally expressed moral principles, as well as accusations of homosexuality.

By reconstructing it, I employed Michel Foucault’s lectures.^[20] Foucault suggests that an analysis of knowledge of selected practices and behaviors located toward their normative patterns lead to the study on techniques and procedures, by means of which people direct themselves and others.^[21] Thus, governmentality is a form of (auto)power that may operate through state and religious contexts to discipline and influence bodies and practices, revealing its socio-spatial consequences for individuals and communities. Following Foucault, I place the official ecclesial and nonexplicit state’s ban of homosexual acts as norms of certain sexual behaviors in communist Poland, manifested in the light of the institutional power of the Church and state. Following Foucault’s conception, this led me to an analysis of (auto)governance connected with the analysis of auto-constituting a way of the subject’s being.^[22] I link the latter with how individuals (the selected priests) constituted themselves as subjects in the context of widely understood sexual agency, sexual individuality, and negotiation of self.^[23]

In this research, I implemented a postulate that academic research on homosexuals in Poland in the second half of the twentieth century should consider their experience of own identity in the Communism era and within the framework of Catholicism.^[24] This article also implements a view that historical academic research into homosexuality in Poland should result from finding and analyzing archives and records on homosexuals, along with descriptions of mechanisms by which LGBT+ persons functioned in the public sphere.^[25] Moreover, this study adds to the argument against secular models of LGBT+ liberation as the only model in modern history.^[26]

3 Sources and Method

I analyzed several sets of sources. The first one includes Gulbinowicz and James’ personal files by the Militia and Security Service. They regard the surveillance and blackmailing of both clergymen (Reference 1). James’s personal files from the Church Curias (Reference 2) and the Church universities archives (Reference 3) were the next sources. They include information about James’ education and his pastoral and academic work. I could not access Gulbinowicz’s personal files because the archive authorities denied access to these files, explaining that the most important facts of Gulbinowicz’s life are contained in publications available in libraries. In view of this, I analyzed, his biographical, digital audio-visual sources available in the National Digital Archives in Warsaw (Reference 4), the Polish Television Archive in Warsaw (Reference 5), and biographical publications stored in Polish libraries (Literature) as including sufficient information to describe the main points of Gulbinowicz s life story. All sources confirmed the high social and ecclesial positions of both clergymen.

The next sources include Gulbinowicz and James’ egodocuments, namely, sermons, interviews, and personal notes (Reference 6). They present reflections that I recognize as biographical sources showing both clergymen’s internal struggles. Analyzing all the sources, I relied on Judith Butler’s view of identities as performed by linguistic acts reiterated in a particular institutional context.^[27] This corresponds with Albanesi point that “gender is something we ‘do,’ in interaction with others, not something we ‘are’”^[28] with “more or less conscious voluntary participation on the part of the individual,”^[29] in certain tension between cultural, linguistic, power relations constructs on the one hand, individual experiences together with other psychological processes (emotions, affects, and fantasies) on the other hand.^[30] The sources I studied are identity-making performatives and not identities in any other meaning of the term.

The Church magisterial documents were the last sources (Reference 7). They include the Apostolic See statements which I used to briefly characterize the Church’s moral and disciplinary evaluation of clergy homosexuality and the same to signalize the doctrinal context of Gulbinowicz and James’ self-figuration.

Due to the requirement to keep historical figures anonymous, I did not include James’s personal data and a list of analyzed sources since his homosexuality was not already presented in the literature. A set of titles and signatures of these sources would be an obvious signal on how to find their personal and other sensitive data. In contrast, I used Gulbinowicz’s original name because his sexual identity has been described and discussed publicly. This research procedure is in line with the University of Warsaw Rector’s Committee of the Ethics of Research Involving Human Participants,^[31] the international and Polish scientific associations representing historians^[32] and the sociologists’ environments.^[33]

To see their interactions, I will interpret both priests’ identities as contrasting the Church and state’s moral construction of non-heteronormative clergy.^[34] I will focus on the period 1962–1985, which includes increased surveillance of both selected priests. I will present the magisterial Church’s condemnation of clergy homosexuality. Next, I will present information that state authorities gathered regarding Gulbinowicz and James’s homosexual identity. I will analyze selected notes written by both priests and then I will reconstruct their creation of ecclesial and political positions. I treat their biographical trajectories in relation to the state and the Church as a source for presenting biographical-gender conclusions about the sexual agency of both clergymen. I describe Gulbinowicz and James as members of the clergy community and managers of their sexual agency. Using Albanesi’s research about sexual agency,^[35] and Foucault’s theory of governmentality of self and others,^[36] I posit that both Gulbinowicz and James were active members of the academic and pastoral communities and creative and ambitious individuals, but they manifested different agency in the context of their sexuality. Consequently, they developed different authorial strategies to maintain their position in the institutional Church, academic environments, and Polish society. As a result, their ecclesial career went in two varying directions. Gulbinowicz tabooed his homosexuality by, among other things, building a strong position in the Church and aspiring to an important position during meetings with SB agents, and authoritatively supporting traditional ecclesial moral theology. As a result, he was appointed bishop and cardinal. James shied away from building an authoritative self-position, struggled with his identity, and tried to negotiate relations with the Church and state by balancing between the authorities and his purposes. Although he had the chance to become a bishop, Polish institutional Church never appointed him to the position. Their experience of governmentality and power impacted these trajectories. My research focused on clergymen’s contextual biographies to show (1) the impact of the Polish state and the Catholic Church on these gay priests’ sexual autonomy and life; (2) what did it mean to have, obtain, be denied, or lose sexual agency by these priests in relation to the state and the Church power?

4 Doctrinal Context: The Church on Priests’ Homosexuality

The genesis of modern ecclesial condemnation of priests’ homosexuality traces back to the beginning of the fourth century. Council of Elvira in 305 made celibacy mandatory for all priests. Celibacy meant sexual purity manifested through no marriage. From the initiative of Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans in 342, and Valentinian II, Theodosius I, and Arcadius in 390, the law punished homosexual acts.^[37] Referencing the custom of punishment, in 693, the Sixteenth Council of Toledo distinguished the clergy guilty of homosexual relations to be condemned to degradation and exile, and the laity – to be sentenced to one hundred lashes.^[38] In 1179, at the Third Council of the Lateran in Rome, in canon 11, Pope Alexander III considered that all clergymen guilty of sodomy would be removed from office or sent to penitential life in a monastery, while laity guilty of the same sin would be excommunicated. The Fourth Synod of Lateran in 1215, in canon 14, announced the removal of priests from the priesthood if they were celebrating mass after being suspended from priestly duties as a result of committing the sodomite sin.^[39] The critical moral evaluation of homosexual acts was in force over the ensuing centuries.

In modern history, a new stage of addressing clergy homosexuality began in 1961 during preparations for the Second Vatican Council and shortly before the time of the communist accusations against Gulbinowicz and James. In 1961, the Apostolic See banned advancement to religious vows and ordination “to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.”^[40] Next, the Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI (in the seventies publicly described as homosexual, a claim he publicly denied)^[41] added that the tradition of celibacy gives spiritual goods and is obligatory for seminary students and priests.^[42] In 1985, the Congregation for Catholic Education enumerated homosexual practice and orientation as excluding a candidate from a seminary.^[43] Homosexual acts are still considered sinful, and there is a ban on homosexuals, even celibate ones, joining seminaries.^[44] Moreover, the Polish Episcopate Conference (PEC) supported this ecclesial moral and discipline insight.^[45] Homosexuality was also unacceptable to the majority of the Polish society at the time. Thus, the institutional Church’s strengthened the Polish social evaluation.

As mentioned earlier, we see that clergy homosexuality was condemned and the Church merged the discipline of both bodies and souls into a single process of normalization, viewed through an ecclesiastical lens.^[46] This constant moral and disciplinary teaching created a doctrinal framework that influenced how Gulbinowicz and James saw themselves and how they were perceived as homosexuals by the communist agents and the institutional Church. Following Albanesi, we may say that the institutional Church required priests to control their destiny and assert themselves by “exercising agency” in an active, conscious way, namely by enforcing the lack of any sexual encounters.^[47] However, following Foucault, we may note that, the Church manifested disciplinary techniques of power and required that the aforementioned rules be kept within the framework of obedience meaning a person’s subjection to the authority of another person, and achievement of apatheia as an active, voluntary, conscience resignation from egoism. In this sense, cancellation of any sexual passion is to be an individual’s will (active type agency) that constantly renounces itself anew (in favor of giving up sexual activity).^[48] Now, I will present selected information about Gulbinowicz and James’s biographies, based on my findings.

5 Gulbinowicz and His Declared Fidelity to the Church

Let us now look at the most important points of Gulbinowicz’s biography by indicating what the security organs wrote about him. Next, I will reconstruct his images in relation to others.

6 James and His Struggles with Church, State, and God

James was born in 1920s. After being ordained a priest – like Gulbinowicz – he worked pastorally, did specialized studies, and then worked scientifically in one of the big cities in Poland. He was promoted to the rank of professor and enjoyed a recognized academic position in Poland and abroad. The period of his detailed surveillance, like in the case of Gulbinowicz, began in 1962 with suspicion of anti-state attitudes toward the communist government. James’ surveillance continued with varying intensity until 1980 and was conducted with his knowledge, which resulted in growing suspicion and descending into hysteria.^[132] When the unsuccessful operational efforts to recruit James as a secret collaborator ended, SB observed him as part of the surveillance of the seminary and university where he worked.^[133]

Gathering information about James, SB determined that he was a favorite of one of Poland’s prominent clergymen.^[134] However, a note on it in Polish is ambiguously worded. It may suggest that James was a lover of the mentioned clergyman, his favorite (without sexual inclinations), or a protégé in the context of scientific and ecclesiastical promotions. My analysis of the personal file of this prominent priest indicated SB’s suspicion of his heterosexual, not homosexual relationship.^[135]

In the 1960s and 1970s, James’ surveillance intensified. At the time, MO of one voivodeship city cooperated with the Division I of Department IV of the Interior Ministry of another voivodeship city on his matter. Interior Minister Władyslaw Wicha established Department IV on 9 June 1962 to combat the hostile activities of Churches and religious associations against the state. Division I of this Department was responsible for recording and documenting the activities of the heads of the Catholic Church, lay and clerical employees of seminaries and Catholic universities, as well as laymen and clergy with a potentially positive attitude toward the communist government.^[136]

In the attempt to recruit James as a secret collaborator, the MO and SB relied on the reports of a secret collaborator “Krzysztof.”^[137] His tasks included surveillance of Church and intellectual circles, as well as identification of clergy with anti-communist views. According to the SB notes, “Krzysztof” cooperated with SB since 1965.^[138] “Krzysztof” was one of those who provided SB with information about James’ homosexual activities. “Krzysztof” was Bogusław “Wit” Wyrostkiewicz (1946–1985),^[139] who was one of the sexual partners of playwright, essayist, and Catholic political activist Jerzy Zawieyski, who in turn was James’ close acquaintance. As secret collaborator “Krzysztof,” Wyrostkiewicz reported on other clergymen (including Zawieyski’s lovers) and their homosexual activities.^[140] Without considering the question of the credibility of the “Krzysztof” denunciations, it should be expressed that his activities influenced the process of the SB’s creation of a linguistic performatives regarding James’ non-heteronormative gender identity.

The testimonies of “Krzysztof” and other witnesses about James’s life reveal that various people, including the bishop he answered to, the rectors of the seminary and university where he worked, faculty members, some students, and members of certain priest groups, were aware of James’s homosexuality.^[141] James’s ecclesiastical superiors pressured to taboo this information, which, according to the SB notes, was visible in the removal of seminary students raising the subject of lecturers’ homosexuality. Meanwhile, students identified by the seminary authorities as homosexuals were not removed. At the same time – still according to SB reports – James was to avoid verbal confrontation in front of the seminary community, making it possible to assess the slander’s credibility.^[142] Noteworthy, James’ intraecclesial personnel file^[143] and his personal file at the university where he worked^[144] do not contain information about his (non)possible homosexuality, which may confirm the tabooization of the accusations of his non-normative sexuality.

In the course of surveillance, SB characterized James as gifted in many fields, ambitious, intelligent, very perceptive, brilliant priest criticizing the PEC, especially Wyszyński. James was to accuse – non-primarily and not directly, out of concern for own career – the PEC of backwardness and lack of political sense which could make it possible to reach a reasonable compromise on the Church-state line. James’s personal notes seem to confirm this attitude toward the Polish Church hierarchy.^[145]

Despite James’s attempts to be careful in building relationships with ecclesial authorities, according to SB, he did not enjoy the confidence of most curialists of his diocese.^[146] Superiors – contrary to SB’s predictions – overlooked him for decorations and promotions at the diocesan level (also in nomination on a bishop), which made him frustrated and depressed.^[147] Nevertheless, he quickly won the trust of his subordinates, namely, laymen and clergy functioning in university and Church structures. In his relations with them, he was to give the impression of a calm man, at ease in conversation and behavior, and self-confident.^[148] In light of the report to SB, it happened that James courted other men, promoted them in their circles, and initiated romantic encounters with them, while behaving “elegantly, in an engaging manner.”^[149] Encountering the clear refusal of the chosen candidate for a lover, he was able to abandon the initiative to form a homosexual relationship with him.^[150]

According to SB, James was aware that other clergymen suspected and even openly accused him of homosexuality. In August 1968, James threatened one clergyman with a trial in an ecclesial court if the clergyman had not withdrawn the accusation. Reportedly, the revocation did not occur. However, there are no sources showing that the case went to court.^[151] We may assume that James took no action calculating many of his steps within the framework of experienced limited agency enforced by obedience to the Church Magisterium and superiors’ decisions. According to one priest, James abhorred authority over himself, especially personal games in bishop’s curias. He valued his independence, which he gained through his academic work. However, he was always doomed to obey bishops.^[152] Awareness of his high, relatively independent but precarious position as a priest–researcher influenced the formation of his relationships. According to the SB agent in charge of James’s surveillance case, James was to say:

“Career, career and above all career, and only then feelings.” According to this “ideology,” [James] is a man from whom certain things must not be demanded. He will never defy the rector (as long as he feels that the rector is a strong figure). He connects his most personal plans and aspirations [with the university]. He cares about his position. He will strive in this direction without internal resistance …. As a “smart” but very wise man, he never says “yes” or “no” – and always does his “little politics.” His attitude to the authority of the Church is obedient in general matters, and only subservient (without consequences of actions) in executive matters. His attitude toward state authorities is always restrained. I have never encountered either [his] disapproval or praise of the system of government in Poland. [James] shrewdly avoids any statements about the Interior Ministry, the Government’s moves, etc …. In matters of a sex-moral nature, [James] tends not to have intimate acquaintanceships with people who might one day discredit him.^[153]

The aforementioned quote from a report to SB reveals, among others, James’s attitude toward the communist government as articulated cautiously. He did not include anti-government content in the sermons he wrote down; nevertheless, he seemed to hold anti-communist views, which he expressed indirectly in his personal statements.^[154] During official meetings with state representatives (MO and SB), he tried to maintain an official but peaceful tone. Nevertheless, there were times when they took a dramatic, emotional course. He sometimes manifested the attitude of a man agitated and offended by the fact of numerous questions from the authorities about Churchmen, and the suspicions of the authorities about his alleged disloyal attitude toward the state. He was to hope for the signing of a concordat between the Polish communist state and the Apostolic See, as well as an improvement in the relations between the state and the Polish institutional Church, which relations had been exacerbated during Wiesław Gomulka’s rule in the 1960s. Simultaneously, James declared a lack of political interests and a concentration of attention on science and pastoral work. He opposed any dialog with SB. He was also supposed to inform his diocesan bishop about his contacts with the security organs, to which he was obliged.^[155]

James attempted to distance himself from contacts with the SB officer.^[156] Nevertheless, on 5 November 1974, the first direct, pre-arranged meeting took place between James and the SB agent in charge of his surveillance case. According to the agent’s note, the meeting proceeded in a polite atmosphere. During it, James remarked on his loyal attitude toward state authorities. He did not refuse further meetings. As a result, SB agent planned to recruit James according to a strategy of gradual enlistment.^[157] Over the following eighteen months, James attempted to sever ties with the SB. The emotional peak of these interactions occurred when, according to the agent’s notes, James dramatically confessed that he would not cooperate, even if it meant losing the social and scientific standing that he had earned. In a note summarizing the meeting, the officer stated that James was suffering from depression caused by remorse and the prospect of imminent death. Agent decided to halt talks and activities aimed at discrediting James.^[158] Nonetheless, he did not curtail the surveillance, which resulted in his receiving reports of James performing a wedding in 1975 to two male Poles “according to a Dutch rite.”^[159]

Reports about this event involve a particularly high degree of controversy. The wedding was to take place in a chapel of a sisterhood in Warsaw and consisted of two parts. In the initial official phase, a fake heterosexual marriage was arranged. This marriage was necessary for a man to gain approval from the state to travel to a foreign trade and diplomatic position. It was agreed upon with the consent of a lesbian woman, known in the LGBT+ community for her support of homosexuals. In the second, secret part of the event, James was to give some form of wedding sanctioning of a relationship between two men.^[160] In the course of my investigation, I did not find a direct or indirect definition of a wedding according to the Dutch rite. On 1 April 2001, the Dutch government legalized civil same-sex marriage, but cohabitation emerged there in the seventies among highly educated, progressive, and non-religious young people.^[161] The described wedding could serve as a quasi-religious celebration of such cohabitation. Nonetheless, the lack of resolution of the question of James’s giving a homosexual wedding does not preclude the fact of SB’s interest in the particular manifestations of James’s possible homosexual identity, also in the frame of his support of non-heteronormative relations.

Despite ongoing surveillance, pressure (e.g., creating an atmosphere of threat to his academic and pastoral position based on discrediting materials), measures to encourage cooperation to improve the quality of life in the socialism era (e.g., issuing necessary administrative approvals for the installation of a landline telephone), and recruitment talks, the agent tasked with recruiting James as a secret collaborator failed to meet his objective.^[162] Consequently, SB abandoned any operational activities with regard to him. In doing so, the agent concluded James’s inability to cooperate with state organs and the devaluation of the gathered compromising information. While summarizing the information, SB did not deem it unreliable. However, they suggested that if the data were to be put into public circulation, the Polish public could interpret it as unreliable and aimed solely at causing a scandal. Therefore, the authorities did not use the information.^[163]

Reconstructing James’s attitude toward his homosexual identity, I refer to his relationship with God and the Church as the depositary of revealed truth. In his writing, James mentioned his fear of being recognized, feeling different, loving differently, silence, rejection,^[164] and the challenges faced by non-normative individuals in the Church.^[165] However, this critique did not mean opposition to Jesus Christ and the moral teaching of the Church. For James, fidelity to this teaching meant his and others’ struggles with experiences of the body and sexuality, which he expressed in preached retreats^[166] and personal notes, including entries inspired by Eugène Delacroix’s fresco “Jacob Wrestling with the Angel.”^[167] In the context of his sexuality, as if suggestively or subconsciously, he was inspired by a painting in which both figures have male bodily features expressed not only through the heads but also in the shape of muscles of their arms, shoulders, back, and the shape of their feet.

Referring to the fresco created from the biblical passages (Genesis 32:4–33, and especially Genesis 32:25–32), James identified his spiritual condition with Jacob’s experience of the body. In this narration, he indirectly suggested critical attitude to the dissociation of priests’ bodies and sexuality from spiritual life and religious practice, which had evolved within Christianity.^[168] James suggested the somatic, sensual, relational, and the theological dimension of the body, which is a vital and indispensable element of human being and their salvation. James thought that using the body for spiritual struggle leads to uncertainty and fear, but he believed his whole physical and spiritual self to be sanctified. Moreover, James believed that God created for human other person to respond individual’s spiritual and bodily needs with love. The strong touch of angel (showed in the fresco as a strong man with a loving embrace with other man) symbolizes the challenge which mutates into an embrace of difficult and bitter God’s love. Noticing both bodies positions, James interpreted Jacob as afraid and uncertain, in the position of tension, spiritual wrestling. To that God answers by giving a very important divine blessing which Jacob needs and desires frantically. Thus, James expresses his hope that God will respond with mercy to his spiritual insecurities, fears, and struggles (battles) related to the experiences of the flesh. He believes that the body and the elements of material world could lead human to hope and elevate their spirit. James noted that in a biblical tale, Jacob wins over angel. However, wounds still leave the permanent, the indelible spiritual and a visible proof of experiences.^[169]

James describes the outcome of the fight, noticing that not all the duels with God which are fought to receive grace can end with human’s victory. Then, after the defeat, symbolic Jacob maintains that his plea for the grace is still important, but in irreconcilable with the divine will, so he stops believing or goes on in uncertainty of faith.^[170] James suggests the importance of the spiritual struggle testifying to the dramatic freedom and autonomy of man before God, i.e., the constant variable dramatic fluctuation between being active and passive in causation before God.^[171] James desires to submit to God’s will (including in terms of moral teaching), and if he cannot, he argues for the vital importance of faithfulness to God on the road to salvation even in the face of spiritual and moral lapses.

On the basis of the aforementioned characteristic, we can see that James presented different strategy of functioning in relation to the mechanisms of state and Church powers than Gulbinowicz. James was constantly and precariously balancing between maintaining active causality and adopting a passive stance of a man who had to submit to state and Church authority. Unlike Gulbinowicz, James was not such openly active in relation with them but simultaneously tried to pursue own goals. Sometimes successfully. He adopted a polite style of being, then tried to limit contacts with SB and MO, and finally unequivocally refused to cooperate. In relation with Church authorities, James changed his strategy from passive to active, and then to passive, and so on, because as a priest, he adopted a polite style of being toward the bishops, especially Wyszyński, but personally criticized his governing style. Nevertheless, he preferred to avoid open conflicts rather than fight them. He tried to remain faithful to Church teaching. In his relationship with (potential) lovers, he was able to be proactive, but only toward men he thought would not compromise him. Thus, James exemplifies a borderline case of agency.^[172] At times, he showed a proactive approach toward his sexual encounters, expressing “this is what I want (now),”^[173] while other times, he focused on his future desires, aspiring to be an independent researcher, a devout Christian, and a priest. In relation with God, he seemed to express his active negotiating by argument “this is who I am,”^[174] but also express spiritual collapse into the angel’s arms as God’s messenger, and believe that God will take care of him. Nevertheless, he also manifested passive sexual agency maintained by passive compliance with the arguments “Who I am” and approach that deference toward Church and God in response to their pressure to be a priest called to purity.^[175] These observations lead us to the conclusion that – in the light of state organs’ notes and James personal statements, he understood model of institutional Church and state’s power as expecting obedience at the cost in interior and exterior struggles in spiritual and social–political context. In this context, James’ overarching goal toward the lability of own agency was to save his scientific position which gave him certain independence and to save his soul despite moral falls and wrestling.

7 Institutional Power and Individual Agency

The period of the 1960s and 1970s marked a shift in state policy toward normalizing state-Church relations. Nevertheless, we can observe the maintaining surveillance of priests in both decades in the context of their homosexuality accusations. This aligns with Gulbinowicz and James’ biographies, as well as another research findings of mine.

When it comes to institutional Polish Church’s approach to the issue of homosexual clergy, based on both priests’ biographies, we see that the institutional Church manifested its power by lack of any attempt of open explicit references to the slander or gossip about each of these priests, to the aim of silence and taboo this controversial question. Moreover, the hierarchical Church could manifest its power with Jame’s homosexuality in mind and therefore failed to recognize his scientific and pastoral merits and not grant him ecclesiastical appointments.^[176] By considering Gulbinowcz’s biography, we may wonder if Polish bishops would give ecclesial nominations to James if he such strongly and unambiguously preached Church’s moral though and loyality to Wyszyński and PEC as Gulbinowicz despite the spiritual-moral tensions and critical approach. In all likelihood, we may answer this question positively. In turn, this suggests that Church, like state, applied to the recognized as homosexual priest discipline as a policy of obedience and fidelity expressed by what one says and does (especially in public), what issues are not raised, and if some immoral acts in the area of sexuality took place, it should be concealed (to maintain image of clergy unity and bond with Polish society) so as not to be exposed until the knowledge of it is used for Church/state goals.^[177]

Both priests’ biographies show the issue of subjection to state surveillance, and the Church’s power with its homophobic rules and norm of celibacy which impacted Gulbinowicz and James’s life and sexual autonomy (their aims, needs, expectations, and passions played out in light of their free will). Moreover, Church and state approach appointed the lack of affirmative modelling or accepting guidance of any sort for homosexual clergy, similar to in the time before Stonewall in the United States.^[178] Though the priests could have some cultural maps from Western countries with greater experience of queer culture (which they visited), they had no inclusive guides in the Church’s Magisterium and toward the communist power of surveillance of homosexuals.

Thus, on the one hand, both clergymen primarily became recipients ordered to adhere to male authoritative religious and political discourses and actions, which, within the Church, only legitimized celibate priesthood. This observation could add to the discussion on the legitimacy of Edward Ingebretsen’s contentious conclusion about the Church’s authoritative discourse on homosexuality. He suggests it is an oppressive system, with lines of authority that could resemble spiritual torture and conflict with human rights, particularly for those remaining in the Church.^[179] On the other hand, both priests manifested their sexual agency which took place in the face of their exploration of understanding themselves, especially the sexual aspects of identity that were considered a source of embarrassment, and which they experienced being members of common (priesthood, believers’, Poles’) sociality.^[180]

The knowledge of state and Church authorities about their non-heteronormative identity influenced their agency in the types of partners they chose (discreet, subordinate, perhaps distant from the authority of the Church), where they could meet (outside of their curias, in big cities), what rules they knowingly violated (celibacy, heteronormativity) in moral, spiritual, social, and political risks of being exposed and losing their high social positions. However, both of them seemed to have taken these risks in their agency. Following Foucault’s writings, we may note that both clergymen located themselves in dragging governmentality of self and others as a result of using knowledge about their sexuality, patterns of expected behaviors, and the constructed ways of being a subject.^[181] This is in line with Albanesi’s observation that personal sense of gender often forms as a reaction to the gender regime or rebellion against gender expectations (hence also norms) to which people are exposed during their growing up.^[182] All these details suggest that discursively created Gulbinowicz and James’s sexual individuality could be owned by them (in active stance toward the subordinated and partners), obtained (on certain stages of negotiation of his relations with Church, state, and God), denied (when they tried to maintain the appearance of heterosexual purity, and contradicted their homosexual identity), and lost (through silencing the issue of Gulbinowicz and James’s homosexual identity, submitting to the moral teaching of the Church, and in acts of penance and spiritual reparation). Both clergymen expressed own sexual agency toward religious–theological reflections and emotions referring to taking obligations, risks, discovering who they are, finding their bodily and discourses about sexuality, feeling anxious, and insecure,^[183] and in the case of Gulbinowicz experiencing a homosexual identity and seeing himself as a spiritual father, which the institutional Church’s portrayal of the bishop as a father figure might have influenced.^[184] The latter broadens Dana Berkowitz and William Marsiglio’s insights on gay men’s father identities^[185] and extends Jane Anderson’s observations on priests using terms like “lover” or “brother” to describe homosexual relationships: “in such a way, he does not erase his personal conviction that his friendship is moral, but obscures the intimate nature of their relationship to socially protect it, thus ostensibly deferring to the moral demands.”^[186]

We may interpret the emerging tension between institutional power and individual agency of clergymen as emerging from Foucaldian reading of Immanuel Kant state of childhood, which – against individual’s some defect, lack, will or some form of will – is to get out from under the external care and take up self-direction^[187] (thus, namely agency). Gulbinowicz permanently, and James inconsistently, grew out of their immaturity while under the authority of the Church, state, and God, discovering their will and ability to manage themselves. Thus, following Foucault, the discourse about their homosexuality, and eventual gay acts, seemed to be their Aufklärung (enlightenment) which brought out their agency.^[188] This enlightenment and then outgrowth of childhood occurred simultaneously in public and private spheres, as both clergymen experienced it as individuals, “universal subjects” and at the same time as Church functionaries, elements of institutional ecclesial “mechanism” having a role to play in it.^[189] Simultaneously, they did not resign from pastoral work, in which they led other believers.^[190] However, Gulbinowicz did not follow a Foucaldian call to be a liberator of others to think for themselves.^[191] Meanwhile, James assumed such a role by suggestively encouraging them to their spiritual struggles with the angel as God’s representative. Since neither Gulbinowicz nor James openly opposed the state or Church’s stance on them and homosexuality, they did not initiate any revolutionary changes regarding celibacy or homosexuality in society or the Church.^[192] The priests could not officially oppose the Church because PEC would consider them as unfaithful to the Church and promoting the materialist ideology of the communists.^[193] Thus, following Foucault, we can note that both priests’ dissatisfaction with their position in the state and the Church over the distribution of privileges and oppression was not great enough to actualize open rebellion.^[194] Or, which Foucault does not take into account in his theoretical considerations, this dissatisfaction was significant, but both clergymen accepted it without engaging in open rebellion. They functioned in a paradox, in which as men-pastors they had virtually the power, but, as recognized as gays, did not feel powerful.^[195]

Within an autonomous relationship with oneself^[196] and both institutions of power, they seemed to “kick,” to “do dissidence”^[197] to this power, but do not free others from under it. Thus, we may assume that despite some opposition to the specificity of the Church’s pastoral power, both clergymen maintained this specificity to their subordinates (Gulbinowicz was to say: “I thought that with my behavior, I would subdue everyone and submit them to my will”).^[198] According to Foucauldian theoretical writings about pastoral power, as clergymen, they were committed to a strong, complex, asymmetrical relationship based on responsibility for the faithful. They vigilantly cared for their flock, preached the revealed truth, the Church principles, and led the sheep to salvation even at the price of sacrificing themselves^[199] (their goals, needs, desires, as Gulbinowicz wrote that priesthood excludes “the right to personal happiness on earth”).^[200] In this sense, the priests presented themselves as pastors while having art of government of self and others^[201] within the economy of human guilt and merit.^[202] Their responsibility was twofold, for if they had mismanaged, they would have contributed to their doom and that of others.^[203] Thus, the state’s accusations of homosexuality potentially contributed to undermining their moral and spiritual standing, and further implied questions about their pastoral responsibility for the salvation of the faithful.

Nevertheless Foucault notes:

It is good, then, for the pastor to have imperfections, to know them, and not to hide them hypocritically from his faithful. It is good that he repents of them explicitly and is humbled by them, so as to maintain himself in a self-abasement that will edify the faithful, just as carefully hiding his frailties would produce a scandal. Consequently, … the pastor’s faults and weaknesses contribute to the edification of his sheep and are part of the movement, the process of guiding them towards salvation.^[204]

The practical application of the theory mentioned earlier can be seen in the sermons and personal writings of both priests, where they discuss their feelings of futility, shortcomings, and internal struggles with spirituality. However, they do not constitute a fully open discourse on the moral failings of the clergy. This kind of discourse is taking place in Poland today in the media coverage of Gulbinowicz’s homosexuality. We may recognize the character of both priests’ statements in the light of German Ritz’s remark. According to Ritz, Polish homosexual literature during the latter half of the twentieth century was largely concealed, with its presence being significantly more hidden compared to other European countries and the United States.^[205] Wojciech Śmieja presents a similar opinion. He believes that the treads in an unofficial Polish homosexual literature were unfinished and not obvious, the motives were hidden. There was the principle of discretion, secret signs, and another desire.^[206] In other words, as Błażej Warkocki states, the mystery of homosexuality belongs to the middle of Polish literature canon at the communist period.^[207]

8 Conclusions

In this article, I demonstrated that Gulbinowicz agentically pursued his goals in sexual encounters, while James (“transitional” as per Albanesi^[208]) showed dramatic changes in his approach and the objectives he sought in his sexual interactions.^[209] Albanesi notes that the meaning the subject ascribes to masculinity/femininity is crucial to the type of presented sexual prowess.^[210] These points refer to Gulbinowicz and James’s experiences of gender subjectivity perspective, as well as the correlation of gender, and social–power interactions with conscious and unconscious emotions.^[211] In the case of both clergymen, it seems that ecclesial magisterial meaning of priesthood as sexual pure, and free from homosexuality formed their concept of masculinity. Priesthood was an ecclesial idea of particular masculinity as the product of historical shifts and magisterial thought in the grounds on which Gulbinowicz and James rooted their sense of themselves as men.^[212] The specificity of the ecclesial rule of sexual purity, celibacy, and anti-homosexuality seemed to confirm Michael S. Kimmel’s conception of masculinity as a homosocial enactment. In this framework, Gulbinowicz and James were “under the constant careful scrutiny of other men [here: ecclesial white, expected heterosexual hierarchs]. Other men watch us, rank us, and grant our acceptance into the realm of manhood. Manhood is demonstrated for other men’s approval. It is other men who evaluate the performance.”^[213] Going on, homophobia appeared as both priests’ fear that other men (the Church or state’s representative) could unmask them, reveal to them and the world that they were not fully doctrinally priestly, and therefore also not real men. This fear made them ashamed and the shame led them to be afraid and quiet,^[214] namely, not to openly rebel against the Church or state. Moreover, Gulbinowicz could change his approach: from being open and modern in line with Vatican II to strongly supporting the conservative moral teachings of the Church, which we may explained by “the fear – sometimes conscious, sometimes not – that others might perceive us as homosexual propels men to enact all manner of exaggerated masculine [here: ecclesial, traditional minded] behaviors and attitudes to make sure that no one could possibly get the wrong idea about us.”^[215] Thus, Gulbinowicz and James’s emotional investment in, and commitment to specific priesthood imagery created their internal subjective experience of gender that they carried from one interaction to another. However, the interactions are understood broadly, not just between them and their sexual partners.^[216] Moreover, the priests in question were aware of the institutional discourse about their homosexuality, as well as the special social position the clergy enjoyed in Polish society during the Communist period. Therefore, they bore in mind that the intelligence about their homosexual activities could be used by the ecclesial and/or state authorities to deprive them of their social status.

Moreover, according to the Magisterium,^[217] theology is the correct interpretation of the divine revelation. For clergy trained at priestly seminaries whose mission is to promote the Catholic faith and morals, theology was not just one of many competing worldviews. The priests perceived it as the only truth and the path to salvation and at the same time they struggled with the established religious view toward their sexual orientation. They spiritually struggled with themselves, with God, and with the Catholic moral teaching maintained by the ecclesiastical authorities. They also experienced the tension between their sexual identity and the sense of duty towards the Polish Catholic society, as well as loyalty to the institutional Church, and the community of clergymen. As a result of this internal and external conflict, they could see their sexual experiences as ugly, non-relational, dirty, or profane against the sacred.^[218] Hence, the Church and the state went far beyond creating the social/cultural/religious/political environment of experiencing one’s sexual agency. Both institutions established values and norms that influenced people’s behavior.^[219] As a result, not only the sexual partner^[220] but also institutional figures such as bishops and state agents wielded significant power in sexual encounters. Thus, we can view the Church and the state as additional factors influencing the sexual decisions of the clergy, alongside the priests themselves and their partners.

The research demonstrates that sexual agency is subject to the negotiation of self-images with each other and external actors. The priests’ demonstrating agency in sexual encounters suggests a mismatch of moral-discipline the Church rule, and experiences at the level of emotional dynamics of interactions with powerful institutions (such as the Church and state).^[221] The sexual agency results from a (mis)match of some experiences, certain personal internal and external components, one’s emotions, the spiritual effort of internal reconciliation, and institutionally imposed cultural values and norms. In Communist Poland, the sexual agency was a subject of the policy of state and ecclesiastical institutions.

My research also demonstrated that both Foucault and Albanesi recognize a conscious agreement to submit to authority as an expression of active agency. Immaturity/passive type of agency means obedience, but only with no individual’s recognition.^[222] Consequently, Albanesi and Foucault place human subjectivity before the power of external entities, and at the core of their subjective action is their will. In this sense, the biographical history of the agency is the history of the desires that make individuals take certain actions.^[223]