Lumen 2018

Kraus concludes bitterly that nothing was obtained by Fr. Charles Pessau’s general visitation. It only burdened the province with an unnecessary expense, put it to shame, and gave it a bad name. He adds ironically that Fr. Stanislaus and the two seminarians made the province an object of ridicule and scorn. 202 These are very strong words and the author of The History of the Polish Province of the Pi- arist Fathers uses them quite often. We know that scorn simply was not Fr. Papczynski’s style, and he certainly would not have ridiculed the religious order which he loved so much. The fact that the visita- tion did not bring any results is another matter. It was conducted badly. The Visitator was not an impartial judge. He was influenced by prejudice and did not try to find the truth. He assumed in advance that his visit was to finally bring about Fr. Stanislaus’s ruin and give satisfaction to his adversaries. It must also be emphasized that the Visitator never familiarized himself with the records of the four ses- sions before the bishop’s tribunal and their final conclusion. He com- pletely ignored the fact that the two bishops of Cracow treated Fr. Stanislaus with great kindness, that they always came to his defense and gave favorable testimonies about him. It is hard to believe that they would have done this without good reason. But the Visitator General did not take this into account. The Atmosphere of Uncertainty On October 14, 1670, a month after the Visitator General had left Cracow, Fr. Papczynski submitted a statement against him to the Apostolic Notary. 203 We do not know what prompted him to do it. It would seem that the matter between the two of them was closed once the visitation was over and Fr. Pessau returned to Germany. Meanwhile, in the middle of October, Fr. Papczynski submitted a formal protest against the actions undertaken against him and his companions by the Visitator (and a Judge General at the same time) during his visit at Kazimierz at the beginning of September. This should not surprise us. A man who is harassed has a right to defend S TANISLAUS P APCZYNSKI 202