Commissioner for Religious Affairs Petras Anilionis does not allow the Vilnius Archdiocesan Priests' Council and College of Consultors, confirmed by Bishop Julijonas Steponavičius, to function. He suggested that Father Algirdas Gutauskas, administrator of the arch­diocese, form a compromise Priests' Council and College of Consul-tors, striking from the list of the College of Consultors confirmed by the bishop the name of Father Jonas Laimimas for his sermon deliv­ered in the church of Kybartai on the anniversary of the arrest of Father Algimantas Keina as reactionary and a former member of the Catholic Committee for the Defense of Believers' Rights, and from the Priests' Council, the name of Father Kazimieras Žemėmis, and to replace them with priests amenable to the government. Msgr. Juzefas Obremski resigned from the Priests' Council.

A similar reorganization awaits the Priests'Council and College of Consultors of Panevėžys. Even the Priests' Councils almost entirely made up by the Commissioner's office are paralyzed. They are doing nothing; no by-laws have been drawn up. The Council must be con­vened by the bishop or administrator, but he can summon it only in consultation with the Commissioner, It's also required to consult the Commissioner about the agenda.

Whom Does It Serve? As could be expected when the Chronicle appeared, the govern­ment atheists were disturbed. The Commissioner for Religious Affairs told the bishops to get rid of the Chronicle. The bishops explained that the Chronicle been born without their knowledge and in fact, they didn't even know who was putting it out. After the failure of this gambit, the KGB began raids and arrests. Trials and harsh verdicts multiplied. Several persons lost their freedom. The KGB tried to establish a dialogue with priests whom they suspected of possibly

Bishop Julijoknas Steponavičius (right) with Father Sigitas Tamkevičius.

having ties with the Chronicle, and tried to convince them that the Chronicle was performing no service for the Church, even less for the state, and was just making the Church's life more difficult.

Nevertheless, regardless of persecutions, raids, interrogations and arrests, in difficult underground circumstances the Chronicle continues to appear. However, KGB propaganda has also ac­complished something. Priests turn up who have come to believe the propaganda over the years and strangely enough, it is difficult to say whether those who speak out against the aforesaid publication do so sincerely or for ulterior motives.

In February, 1985, in Vilnius, while conducting the retreat for priests, the Dean of Deanery of Turgeliai, Father Kazimieras Vai­cionis, spoke out sharply against the Chronicle. According to him, this publication contradicts the spirit of evangelical love, offending the atheists by its criticism. Father Vaicionis, in his talk, condemned the gathering of signatures, protests, memoranda and defenders of rights. According to Father Vaicionis, the one being exploited is ob­liged out of love of the exploiter to remain silent, and may not com­plain. On the contrary, calling for help would be an offense against charity. Analogically, when a wolf is carrying off a sheep, the shepherd out of love for the wolf, must remain silent and quietly watch.

In the name of love of the hooligan, one must hide behind a tree and not come to the assistance of a person if the latter beats and kicks him... Father Vaičionis does not recognize the principle of self defense for the Church and the faithful. It's questionable whether such "charity is evangelical charity when important values are not defended. "He is not worthy of freedom who does not defend it," is is the inscription on one monument.

It is questionable whether Christ would approve of such "char­ity". For the Pharisees, he had harsh words: "Whitened sepulchers, hypocrites." He took the whip to the merchants who had moved into the temple... He defended the apostles from the Pharisees, who had accused them of breaking the Sabbath when the apostles picked and ate the beards of grain. The hungry have the right to eat. He defended the fallen woman. He defended the person's right to a good name. He defended the rights of children, speaking out harshly against the scandalizers of innocent souls... The Gospel does not give in to evil. It praises St. John the Baptist, when he, defending the sacredness of the family, "offended" the philanderer Herod and for that he had to die. The apostles acted likewise. The apostles were told not to speak about Christ, but they replied that, "We must obey God rather than men."

According to Father Vaičionis, the Church in South Africa, struggling for the rights of the blacks, could also be accused of offend­ing against charity, and so could the clergy of Chile who show solidarity with the victims of the regime suffering in the concentration camps... We should all know that condemning the action does not yet mean condemning the person. An action can be worthy of condemnation, but the person forming it always remains worthy of respect. However, one may never out of respect for a person approve his unsuitable behavior. "Socrates is my friend and Plato is my friend, but my greatest friend is Truth," was a saying already in ancient times. The Reverend Father does not acknowledge the right of others to protest, but for himself he makes an exception, protesting against those defend­ing human rights. Whom do such protests help? The Church, or those who are struggling against the Church?


To. The Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Konstantin Chernenko

Attached to the Council of Ministers of the USSR Commissioner Petras Anilionis of the Council for Religious Affairs of the Lithuanian SSR

Return address: 235610 Telšiai Spaudos 2 Diocesan Chancery

The Priests of the Diocese of Telšiai and the Prelature of Klaipeda


A Petition

You have much to say about peace and international justice, so we would like to call your attention to the injustices experienced by the faithful.

Even though the Soviet Constitution guarantees all citizens free­dom of conscience, nevertheless we priests and faithful come up against various unconstitutional repressions and insurmountable dif­ficulties. Here are a few of the most important:

1. In 1946, at the direction of the government, three seminaries were shut down; only one was left (in the City of Kaunas), and that, with a very small number of students. True, lately about thirty stu­dents annually are allowed to be accepted, but the number of priests is clearly insufficient. In the Telšiai Diocese, and the Prelature of Klaipeda alone, of 142 churches, only eighty-four have their own priests, while fifty-eight churches are without priests! Moreover, sick, elderly, invalid priests are forced to perform the priestly ministry who would normally be eligible for a well-earned rest, . The number of priests in the LSSR decreased drastically every year. Two or three times more die than the number of new young priests ordained. The situation is reaching catastrophic proportions. There are so-called illegal priests, who have finished their studies on their own,' they are unregistered by the state. This is really abnormal! In order to remedy the situation, it is imperative to allow the Kaunas Interdiocesan Semi­nary to accept, not thirty new seminarians annually, but as many as the Bishops' Conference of the Catholic Church in Lithuania has need of. We remind you that the seminary in Kaunas is supported entirely by the offerings of the faithful.

2. To this day there remains the old, painful, open wound over the Soviet government's unjustified confiscation of the Catholic church in Klaipeda.

The church was erected with the consent and permission of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet government. It was built by the workers of Klaipeda, and the entire believing public of Lithuania supported the construction by their offerings. Only after it was erect­ed, just before its consecration, the Soviet government confiscated the church, demolished its steeple, and converted it into the state philharmonic. All the repeated requests of the faithful of Klaipeda went unheard. The faithful suffer, and priests working in Klaipeda are suffering because the present little house of prayer of the City of Klaipeda is extremely small. People endure outside in the rain and suffer in the cold because there is no room for them in the little church. Therefore, we ask you, very, very much, to satisfy the constant requests of the faithful of Klaipeda, return to them the church erected with their labor and their money, because the faithful of Klaipeda, by their zealous and conscientious daily work, really deserve it.

3. The Soviet Constitution guanmtees every one of its citizens freedom of conscience. However, some of the atheist officials of the local government, transgressing against the Soviet Constitution, restrict the religious rights guaranteed by it, e.g.: They allow very little religious material to be printed, which does not satisfy even the minimal requirements of the faithful. They forbid schoolboys and servers to go to church, they do not allow them to teach children religious truths, as is done in other socialist democratic republics.

We therefore trust that the anti-Constitutional actions of govern­ment officials be forbidden, and that the faithful not be prevented from practicing their faith.

We have been especially surprised lately, and greatly saddened, by the sentencing of two of our priests, Alfonsas Svarinskas and Sigitas Tamkevičius, to long terms, even though they were only defending the religious rights of believers guaranteed by the Soviet Constitution.

At the present time, Father Jonas Kastytis Matulionis has been ar­rested for purely religious activities.

Therefore, we urgently request you, Honorable Chairman, to use your good offices with the appropriate agencies of the Soviet government; that the cases of Father Alfonsas Svarinskas and Father Sigitas Tamkevičius be reviewed, and that they and Father Jonas Kastytis Matulionis be allowed to go free, and again freely perform their priestly duties.

Priests of the Diocese of Telšiai and the Prelature of Klaipėda: 1. Adomas Alminas, 2. Stanislovas Anužis, 3. Klemensas Arlaus­kas, 4. Albinas Arnašius, 5. Antanas Augustis, 6. Brunonas Bagužas, 7. Aloyzas Baškys, 8. Antanas Beniušis, 9. Petras Bernotas, K). Domininkas Bivainis, 11. Juozapas Bukauskas, 12. Antanas Binkus, 13. Bronislovas Burneikis, 14. Juozapas Butkus, 15. Liudvikas Dam­brauskas, 16. Stanislovas Ežerinskas, 17. Antanas Garjonis.

18. Juozapas Gastiūnas, 19. Kazimieras Gasčiūnas, 20. Vincentas Gauronskis, 21. Jonas Gedvilą, 22. Algis Genutis, 23. Domininkas Giedra, 24. Antanas Gylys, 25. Juozapas Grabauskas, 26. Jonas Ilskis, 27. Antanas Ivanauskas, 28. Aleksandras Jakutis, 29. Juozapas Janaus-kas, 30. Petras Jasas, 31. Antanas Jurgaitis, 32. Vladislovas Juskys, 33. Jonas Kauneckas, 34. Anicetas Kepraskas.

35. Vincentas Klebonas, 36. Alfonsas Klimavičius, 37. Bronis­lovas Latakas, 38. Aloyzas Lideikis, 39. Petras Linkevičius, 40. Petras Lygnugaris, 41. Petras Merliūnas, 42. Juozapas Maželis, 43. Juozapas Miklovas, 44. Vytautas Mikutavičius, 45. Julijonas Miškinis, 46. Vy­tautas Moketaitis, 47. Petras Našlėnas, 48. Juozapas Olšauskas, 49. Juozapas Pačinskas, 50. Jonas Pakalniškis.

51. Algirdas Pakamanis, 52. Jonas Paliukas, 53. Petras Palšis, 54. Jonas Paulauskas, 55. Jonas Petrauskas, 56. Konstantinas Petrikas, 57. Tadas Poška, 58. Antanas Petronaitis, 59. Kazimieras Prialgauskas, 60. Adolfas Pudžemys, 61. Alfonsas Pridotkas, 62. Klemensas Puidokas, 63. Petras Puzaras, 64. Bronius Racevičius, 65. Vladas Rad-veikis, 66. Antanas Ričkus, 67. Kazimieras Rimkus, 68. Jonas Rud-zinskas, 69. Pranas Ružė, 70. Stanislovas Sakutis, 71. Vincentas Sen­kus, 72. Liudas Serapinas, 73. Petras Serapinas.

74. Henrikas Sirtautas, 75. Vytautas Skirparis, 76. Domininkas Skirmantas, 77. Petras Stukas, 78. Liudvikas Šarkauskas, 79. Antanas Šaškevičius, 80. Valentinas Šikšnys, 81. Zigmas Šimkus; 82. Juozas Širvaitis, 83. Juozas Šukys, 84. Vladas Šlevas, 85. Juozas Šukys; 86. Henrikas Šulcas, 87. Tomas Švambarys, 88. Julius Tamašauskas, 89. Feliksas Valaitis, 90. Petras Venckus, 91. Konstantinas Velikoniškis,

92. Leonas Veselis, 93. Vincas Vėlavičius, 94. Jonas Vičiulis; 95. An­tanas Zdanavičius, 96. Juozas Zeberskis, 97. Ferdinandas Zilvys, 98. Kazimieras Žukas, 99. Romualdas Žulpa, 100. Vytautas Žvirzdinas, 101. Illegible Signature, 102. Illegible signature.

December, 1984

Priests who refused to sign the statement:

Fathers: Jonas Beinoris, Česlovas Degutis, Zenonas Degutis, Ed­mundas Germanas, Juozapas Gedgaudas, Stanislovas Ilinčius, Kazimieras Magelis, Juozapas Mantvydas, Juozapas Rutalė. Antanas Striukis, Bernardas Talaišis, Vytautas Kadys.

The following priests were not found at home during the collec­tion of signatures:

Fathers: Bronislovas Bradžius, Anupras Žukas, Anupras Gauronskis, Kazimieras Gylys, Konstantinas Jadviršis, Izidorius Juš-kys, Stanislovas Vaitelis, Stanislovas Lekutas, Juozapas Liutkevičius, Aloyzas Orentas, Pranciškus Satkus; Pranas Venckus, Vincas Viatkus.

To: Commissioner for Religious Affairs, Petras Anilionis From: Father Juozapas Razmantas Pastor of Žalpiai; Kelmė Rayon

A Explanation

On October 20, 1984, the Chairman of the Pakražantis Rayon showed me a warning notice issued in the name of Commissioner for Religious Affairs Petras Anilionis, saying that I have no right to hold services or to minister to the faithful in the church of Viduklė. Such a communication from the Commissioner for Religious Affairs is con­trary to the Constitution of the USSR, the Helsinki Accords and international covenants which the government of the Soviet Union has signed.

The bishop, in assigning me to Žalpiai, mandated me to assist in ministering to the faithful of the parish of Viduklė whenever they teeniest it. It was suggested that I live in Viduklė and serve as pastor of Žalpiai, since the residence-rectory belonging to the church in Žalpiai, was confiscated by the atheists,and the priests have to live in a rotten, delapidated shack which is impossible to repair or reno­vate.

   Almost half of the parish of Žalpiai is within the confines of Raseiniai Rayon, borders on die parish of Viduklė, and extends near to Viduklė itself. The faithful of the parish of Žalpiai bury their dead in the Viduklė parish cemetery. So I am obliged to carry out religious funeral services and to conduct services on the anniversary of death, the thirtieth day from the day of death and other occasions in the church of Viduklė, whenever they ask for me and come fetch me.

What I must do — minister or refuse ministry to the faithful — is spelled out by Canon Law. Whether certain ministrations are al­lowed or not, and what penalties shall be exacted for forbidden minist­rations are decided by the bishop, and not by Executive Committees. If all this does not please the Commissioner for Religious Affairs, I suggest that he check his views with the diocesan bishop.

On November 5, 1984, Vice Chairwoman Lapinskienė of the Kelmė Rayon Executive Committee, summoning me to Kelmė, showed me a second warning received from Raseiniai Rayon, identical in content to the first. At first, the Vice Chairwoman berated me for participating in the services October 26 for Father Svarinskas in the church of Viduklė, after receiving a first warning, even though at the time I had not received any warning.

They showed me the first warning October 30, and having seen the warnings, I do not believe that they could have been written by the Commissioner for Religious Affairs, since the first has no seal and in the second warning is the expression, "You hyped the criminal Alfonsas Svarinskas...". Only an ordinary person, unacquainted with priests, all the more with the zealous Father Alfonsas Svarinskas could express himself in this way, and not a high official. Moreover, they did not allow me to take away a single copy of the warning nor to copy the contents.

Commissioner for Religious Cult should be an intermediary be­tween today's atheistic government and — almost the entire public and its priests—to objectively inform the handful of atheists about the work of the priests, and not to represent the interests of a handful of atheists noted for their hatred.

Yes, Father Svarinskas is a "criminal" to the atheists. To the faithful, Father Svarinskas is one of the most zealous priests, one of the most spiritual, carrying out the duties, not of a minister of cult, but of a Catholic priest, applying to everyday things and events the standard of truth... For this he is tortured, but the sufferings and blood of martyrs strengthens our holy Faith.

During the Nazi era, priests helped and hid Jews, escaped Rus


Father Alfonsas Svarinskas


sian prisoners, bought young men out of the German Army... Today, they defend every moral truth.

Since both written warnings were sent, not to me personally, but from the Raseiniai Rayon to the Kelmė Ray on,and they were not passed on to me, it raises the questionwhether they were written by the Commissioner for Religious Affairs or by that spiteful handful of atheists. In the warnings, I am scolded for breaking the law by not complying with Article 19 of the Laws Regarding Religious Associa­tions. The Laws Regarding Religious Associations are contrary to the

Soviet Constitution, to the Helsinki Accords, the International De­claration of Rights and Canon Law.

This is not law, but a stick presented to the atheists to attack the faithful, to profane shrines and tear down crosses... The bishops and 520 priests have signed against them. If those who have signed abided by them, they would be hypocrites.

Vice Chairwoman Lapinskienė of the Kelmė Rayon Executive Committee advised me to check with the Raseiniai Rayon to obtain a permit for religious ministrations. However, according to Canon Law, permission to work in a parish is given by the pastor of the parish and not by some Executive Committee. It has never been heard that Executive Commitees would give permission for some­thing, that is, that they would wish the Church well. On the contrary, they only issue prohibitions, and turn priests against one another, classifying them as "loyal" and "extremists", they send spies to church to see which priests are carrying out religious ceremonies, what kind of sermons they are giving, who the children and youth are participat­ing in services, and serving Mass.

Yes, the atheists are allowed everything. They need no permits to offend the religious sensibilities of the faithful, to desecrate shrines, destroy crosses and wayside shrines, to desecrate old cemeteries and destroy architectural monuments there (such as Maiden Hill and else­where). For purposes of atheistic propaganda, it is alright to lead the children and the youth of Lithuania astray, while the faithful can do nothing. They are not allowed to teach their children the truths of religion. Children may not go to church, participate actively in ser­vices, serve at Mass, take part in singing or processions. If they do so, children are persecuted and punished; when they finish high school, they are not allowed to take examinations... Even at funerals, once the wreaths have been placed, the atheist teachers chase the children out of church.

The faithful are obstructed from visiting shrines, such as Šiluva, Žemaičių Kalvarija (Calvary of the Samogitians); the Hill of Crosses... Drivers have their licenses taken away just because they take the faithful to these shrines and to the religious festivals taking place there.

It seems to me that the atheists are allowed too much, even teaching the bishops what their rights and duties are, and directing priests when, for whom, how and where to pray, or to carry out religious ceremonies.

In view of this, when the Constitution of the Soviet Union, the Helsinki Decrees, international agreements and all the laws of the

Soviet Union guarantee full freedom of belief and of worship, I, even though being up in years, performing religious ceremonies, helping my neighbors to take care of the faithful at their personal request, even though not in my own parish church, have not offended against the faithful, nor Canon Law, especially when in Lithuania there are more than 160 churches without priests, when many young men wishing to be priests are blocked off from the seminary. Hence, I do not deserve such strict warnings with the threats of even stricter, though unspecified measures — like those used against Father Svarinskas or those against Father Popieluszcko.

If I have somehow broken the law by my priestly work, liturgical services or Christian morality (even to loving enemies, praying for them and not cursing them for persecuting me), supporting by prayer prisoners and those astray, I ask you to warn me through my own bishop, and not through rayon Executive Committees

(In some places, the grammar has been corrected — Ed. Note)

To: The Chief Prosecutor of Lithuania

Copies to: Bishop and Administrators of Lithuania

Commissioner for Religious Affairs, Petras Anilionis

From: Father Antanas Ylius

Emeritus of the Church of Joniškis Born April 21, 1909 Residing Joniškis, Tarybų 2c


A   Statement

In 1974, Prosecutor Leonavičius of Šiauliai City and Rayon, told me that the prosecutor watches to see how the law is kept, now the law bans calumny and lying. They are punishable offenses.

With this in mind, I am writing to the Chief Prosecutor of Lithuania, calling his attention to the following: In the Lietuvos Tarybinė Encyklopedija (Soviet Encyclopedia of Lithuania) (Vilnius, 1981), on page 319 of Volume 8, it says, "For the murder of his lover, Msgr. Konstantinas Olšauskas was sentenced in 1929 to five years in prison . In 1931, he was amnestied."

Only the basis of the book by J. Kauneckis, Prelatas Olšauskas (Vilnius, 1962), the film — Descent to the Ninth Circle (Devyni nuopolio ratai), it would be an unforgivable embarassment for the publishers of the aforesaid encyclopedia if they did not know that the trial of Msgr. Olšauskas was not a criminal trial, but political. For Msgr. Olšauskas was condemned without any proof. This was admitted by the former Minister, Žilinskas; the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Grigaitis and the Associate Justices admitted that they had found Msgr. Olšauskas guilty without any proof. He was found guilty because of a psychosis aroused by a press inimical to him and the Catholic Church, which was condoned by the government at the time.

It is an ugly and unforgiveable libel, misleading and detrimental to the public, and especially the youth. I therefore ask and demand in the name of the Law, Truth and Justice, that the appropriate authorities be obliged to strike from the encyclopedia the aforesaid item, to ban the showing of the film, and to remove from the bookstores the book about Msgr. Olšauskas, and to repair the moral harm done by the trial, the book and the film. Such books and films truly do no honor to the Soviet government.

October 25, 1984



In 1984, a Christinas celebration was being arranged in the yard of Alytus. Even though it was not the first, the affair displeased the city government. Vice Chairwoman Laukienė of the Alytus City Executive Committee, shouted at Father Pranas Račiūnas. "The Soviet government is mighty. We have the means, we'll take care of you!" In the end, the government officials agreed to allow the Christ­mas celebration to be arranged in church.

On the day appointed for the holiday, all kinds of obstacles were thrown up to the pupils of the City of Alytus. Various affairs were arranged in school, the pupils were kept in school until evening. They were warned not to attend the celebration being organized in church. In spite of the interference; several thousand children and youth gathered. No small number of them went to confession and received Holy Communion.

During the affair itself, a few teachers were sent from each school to spy on their own pupils. Security personnel and militia in civilian dress stood guard in the churchyard from the beginning of the affair to its end.

On February 14, 1985, the Administrative Committee of the Executive Committee of the Alytus City Council of Workers' De­puties: Chairperson Mrs. B. Butvilienė, Secretary Mrs. J. Lelienė,

Members Mrs. J. Smileiene and Mrs. A. Petraitienė and A. Ivanaus­kas, after considering Administrative Case No. 124 in open session, determined that Father Antanas Gražulis, son of Antanas, on De­cember 15 or 18, 1984 (illegible, although in reality it happened on December 26), arranged in the churchyard of Alytus a Christmas celebration for preschoolers, the result of which was to arouse conster­nation and disturb the public order. In this way, they disobeyed the order of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Lithuanian SSR, of May 12, 1966. In accordance with the Regulations for Assessing and Collecting Administrative Fines confirmed by order of the Pre sidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Lithuanian SSR, January 19; 1962, it is the decision of the Commission to assess Father Gražulis. Antanas, son of Antanas, an administrative line of 50 rubles.


January 14, 1985, Alytus City and Rayon traffic police personnel came to the church rectory of Alytus II, and stated that the automobile of the pastor, Father Pranas Račiūnas, a NIVA, had the day before, that is, January 13, caused an accident in front of the Žuvintas Store. The young man, Petras Gražulis, went with the traffic police personnel to the Motor Vehicles Department to take care of the matter.

He was told that he would have to go to the Division of Internal Affairs. There, the Chairman of the Alytus Internal Affairs Section Court sentenced Gražulis to ten days for alleged hooliganism. This was how the KGB agents squared accounts with young Petras Gražulis for collecting signatures in behalf of Fathers Alfonsas Svarinskas, Sigitas Tamkevičius and Jonas Kastytis Matulionis, and in behalf of the young man Romas Žemaitis.

Leipalingis (Lazdijai Rayon)

To: The Prosecutor for the Republic

From: Citizen Robertas Grigas, Son of Antanas

Residing at Lazdijai Rayon

Leipalingis, Naujosios 13

A Statement

On October 12, of this year, I was supposed to fly from the capital airport on the Vilnius - Novosibirsk flight. At the checkpoint, militia and KGB personnel stopped me, and searched me and my luggage. In the course of it, the officials found nothing which airline regulations forbid carrying aboard. Instead of apologizing, a civilian who would not identify himself declared that he was confiscating letters addressed to:

618801 Perm Region Chusovskoy R-n Polovinka V.S. 389-39

Rev. Sigitas Tamkevicius

618236 3 Perm Region Chusovskoy R-n Kuchin V.S. 389-36

Rev. Alfonsas Svarinskas

4 31 200 Mordovia ATSR Tengushev R-n Zz 385-3-4

Jadyyga Bieliauskiene

To those people I, together with a large part of the Lithuanian nation, am thankful for their goodness of heart. I have never heard that it was officially forbidden to write letters to political prisoners. In response to my protests, the searchers announced that a letter allegedly must be sent from the place where it was written... Since Art. 54 of the Constitution, guaranteeing confidentiality of correspond­ence has not to date been repealed, please explain on what legal basis this vulgar arbitrariness of officials goes on.

Robertas Grigas                 October 15, 1984

December 14, 1984, Robertas Grigas received a written summons to come see Lazdijai Rayon Prosecutor Ziauatys. When the recipient did not arrive, a second summons was received December 26. When he presented himself, the prosecutor first inquired why Robertas Grigas had not come in response to the first summons. When he explained that when summoned on that day, he would never come, Prosecutor Ziautys said that believers were provided with every con­dition for celebrating religious holidays. According to the prosecutor, believers could make up the work from the religious holiday on other days. Grigas disagreed with the prosecutor. In his words, neither

 Prosecutor Ziautys nor he himself is a little child, and he knows well that for celebrating religious holidays, people are discharged from work. "You are looking for something you haven't lost. Your father, as long as he was working as a teacher, was necessary both to Father Juozas Zdebskis and Father Ignas Plioraitis, and but since he was discharged from work, (See Chronicle, Nos. 54, 58 — Trans. Note) he's of no use to anyone! Such a fate awaits you, too," Prosecutor Ziautys explained to Grigas.

When Robertas Grigas requested that they tell him about the purpose of the summons. Prosecutor Ziautys read the reply of the Prosecutor's Office in Vilnius, concerning the complaint of Robertas Grigas about the confiscation of letters addressed to the Rev. Sigitas Tamkevičius, Rev. Alfonsas Svarinskas and Jadvyga Bieliauskiene.

In his communication, Prosecutor Bakučionis reported that the letters of Robertas Grigas, confiscated at the control point in Vilnius Airport were taken illegally. The auxiliary personnel of the Revenue Service were warned and told to abide strictly by work rules in the future, and the letters themselves were sent to the addressees. As a guarantee, Žiautys pointed to Prosecutor Bakučionis' reply to the complaint. The prosecutor refused to sign the text of the reply, or to give out a copy of it. Instead of permission, he reread the response. Prosecutor Žiautys, arguing that in his office and in his chair, there are no other persons, refused to show Robertas Grigas any identifica­tion. But that was not true. Behind Grigas into the office came a staff member who never identified himself, and who silently observed the entire conversation.


On February 16, 1985, the mother of Father Jonas Vaitonis, the pastor of Kalisnykai, was being buried. A modest lunch had been ordered at a restaurant for the faithful who accompanied the remains from Kalisnykai. When the funeral had assembled for lunch, restaurant employees rudely warned them that if the believers made the Sign of the Cross or said grace, they would be ejected.

It would be interesting to know, on the basis of what instruct-ons restaurant employees had the right to forbid anyone to pray before the meal. Not long ago, Konstantin Kharchev, Chairman of the USSR Council for Religious Affairs, came to the Kaunas Seminary and encouraged those clergy who did not dare in his presence to make the Sign of the Cross before eating. Why do those at the top-level speak one way, and our leaders receive other instructions?