Lumen 2018

hope that he might be accepted back by the Piarists if no other reli- gious congregation would take him. He had allegedly asked to be accepted by the Benedictines, Dominicans, Franciscans, and Dis- calced Carmelites but was turned away by all of them. 242 We know that this was not so because Papczynski himself wrote that many re- ligious congregations were inviting him to join them at that time. He refused because the voice of God was calling him to found a new congregation. 243 It seems that Fr. Kraus decided to turn the entire matter over to the diocesan tribunal at that time. Father Stanislaus expected that he would be summoned before that court soon, therefore, on January 15, 1671, he wrote a letter to the pastor of Sieciechow, a doctor of law, 244 asking for his advice and assistance. Then, on January 26, 1671 (in a statement witnessed by a notary), he named his plenipo- tentiary who could represent him at the bishop’s court if necessary. 245 He himself was going to go to Warsaw at that time in response to Bishop Gembicki’s letter. 246 The date of the hearing was set for February 13, 1671. Papczynski did not use the services of his plenipotentiary and appeared in person, having either been to Warsaw already or having postponed that visit. The session of the court was chaired by Canon Jerome Russocki. It is evident from the decree issued at the conclusion of the hearing that Judge Russocki recognized Fr. Papczynski’s right to obtain a certificate testifying to his honesty and impeccable conduct during the time when he was a professed member of the Congregation of the Piarist Fathers. He ordered that such a certificate be issued to the defendant, which was in accordance with both the requirements of religious charity and the commonly accepted practice. 247 The Pi- arists expected that the verdict issued at the conclusion of the session of the court on February 13, 1671, would force Fr. Papczynski to give up the Piarist habit. This did not happen, however, because the judge ordered that the certificate of good conduct be issued to Pa- pczynski first. The Piarists did not like this ruling and appealed im- mediately. When their appeal was rejected by the judge, they 213 At the Crossroads