Introduction
The history of Church property in Poland is a story of the collision between centuries-old tradition and violent state interventions. From the era of the Second Polish Republic, through the communist period, to the present day, the issue of ownership has oscillated between the idea of sovereignty and the theology of possession. This article analyzes the legal evolution of mortmain property, the mechanisms of restitution, and the controversies surrounding the Church Fund. Readers will learn how historical legacies influence today's political capital and why the lack of a transparent balance sheet of assets hinders the debate on the secularity of the state.
Mortmain Property and the 1950 Decree: Foundations of the Dispute
A key term is mortmain property—assets belonging to perpetual legal entities, excluded from the logic of blood inheritance. The March Constitution of 1921 granted the Church a preeminent position but signaled land reform, which was further specified by the Concordat of 1925. This document guaranteed the inviolability of property while introducing a system of state supplements (compensatory payments) in cases of expropriation.
This logic was brutally broken by the 1950 decree, under which the People's Republic of Poland seized landed estates exceeding a certain acreage. In exchange, the Church Fund was established, representing a replacement of ownership with subsidies and allowing the state to control Church finances. Simultaneously, post-1945 geopolitics erased approximately 378,000 hectares of property beyond the Bug River in the Eastern Borderlands from the inventory, which, for political reasons, is not subject to any real restitution.
The Property Commission and Restitution: The Costs of Returning to the Past
After 1989, the primary tool for property return became the Property Commission—a legal hybrid that, over two decades, processed 3,063 applications, returning approximately 65,000 hectares of land. This activity stirs emotions due to its extrajudicial nature and social costs, particularly in cities where reclaimed tenement buildings often ended up on the real estate development market. This process must be distinguished from the enfranchisement in the Western and Northern Territories; a 1971 law transferred former German property to the Church there as a new legal act, rather than restitution of property seized by decree.
Estimating the real value of recovered property faces significant methodological barriers. Archival chaos after 1939, fluid land definitions, and the risk of summing overlapping registers mean that journalistic valuations (ranging from millions to billions of zlotys) are rarely based on hard accounting data. The work of historians, such as the report by Rev. Prof. Walencik, remains the domain of specialists rather than common civic knowledge.
The Church Fund and the Constitutional Paradox: The Polish Financing Model
The modern Church Fund is an anachronistic prosthesis. Originally intended as self-financing compensation from the income of seized assets, today it is a permanent budget item, primarily covering social security contributions for the clergy. Compared to the rest of Europe, Poland appears to be a country straddling two worlds: it lacks a transparent tax allocation system (as in Italy) or a church tax (as in Germany), yet maintains a system of discretionary subsidies.
This situation exposes the paradox of Article 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. On one hand, it declares state impartiality and the equality of religious denominations; on the other—through the Concordat—it grants the Catholic Church lex specialis status. This wealth effectively converts into political capital; the parish priest, as a figure of public trust, means the pulpit is sometimes treated by politicians as a tool for legitimizing power, which complicates a substantive audit of property privileges.
Summary
Church property in Poland is a mirror of national identity—simultaneously sacred and secular. The lack of a transparent balance sheet means that the discussion regarding the finances of religious communities takes place in the realm of myths rather than facts. A property settlement and the creation of a modern financing mechanism are necessary conditions for building a truly impartial state. Are we ready to face this legacy so that the sacred no longer outweighs justice and transparency in public life?
📄 Full analysis available in PDF