In the last number of Lietuva we announced that the Rev. Krawczunas, with a few old women and some so-called singers, held the parish meeting in the church in the name of the parish, and that the priest elected his own committee and the committee says that the budget of the church is sound and that all the money was spent by the priest for the benefit of the parish.

We have no doubt that the priest did spend all the parish money. Anyone could spend the money if we give him the full power, even without the proof of the books giving the priest's accounting that all the money of the parish was spent and the debt of $25,000 made. We were not questioning whether the priest spent or kept the money; we are asking him what did he spend the money for? For God's glory, or for his servant's benefit?

Besides the lots, for which statements show $5,085 was paid, there were no other debts and it could not have been, but the priest shows that he had paid certain debt of $10,410.37; therefore, we begged the priest 2 to explain for what and for whom the debt was paid.

To our request, neither the priest nor committee gave us the right answer. The priest, in order to answer us, denounced us from the pulpit; that the infidels are attacking him without justified cause and that he was even shedding his tears. We did not ask the priest for his tears; we demanded the accounting of how he had spent the people's money. Did the money go for some other cause or for the purpose for which it was donated by the people?

The people, who donated their money for the church, now when they are demanding the account of their money are called infidels by the priest. That proves that the priest uses infidelity as his weapon to close the lips of the people who are demanding the account of their money and for what purpose the priest had spent it. We raised the question, not about God, but about the money, but instead of answering the money matter, the priest is sticking in God. Is money the God of the priest?

3

We recognize God as God, as the Creator of all things, and we believe that God does not demand any money. If the parish monies were unsuitably spent, if the parish debt is kept in secret, for this we are not accusing God, but we are accusing those who used the money for their own selfish benefit, and who made the debts without the permission, knowledge, or consent of the parishioners -- and for this the priest is calling us infidels.

Only such a person can say that who does not believe in God himself, and who holds the dollar as his God.

It was announced in our church during, the sermon that it was not fair for the faithful to demand the account of the funds, which were donated to God. It looks to us that such a sermon suits only medieval ages, but is not for today. Today even the devotees are watching that their donations to God be spent for God's glory, but not for the priest's private affairs.

4

The parishioners were endeavoring to get more specific explanation, protests were made, and our Reverend even got sick on account of this turmoil, and yet he would not surrender the budget. If somebody would have tried to take the altar from the priest, really, the priest would have not defended the altar so hard as he is defending the parish treasury and the secrecy of the debt he had made. Now we see that the priest is valuing money much higher than God. No wonder the priest calls the people infidels, because they demand the priest give accounting of their donated money.

Let us take the honest account, how much money we would need for a complete establishment of such a church property:

The twelve lots were bought for $600 each	7,200
The church, the best possible of its size,
the altars and complete furnishings	50,000
The residence for	10,000
The school for	30,000
Grading, planting trees, fences. etc.	2,000
Total	775,000

5

Now, someone will ask where to get that much money? The last statement shows that there are three thousand parishioners. If the priest would have called the meeting and told the three thousand parishioners what he needed the money for, then the parishioners would have assessed themselves, ten dollars each member, and in three years they would have had the fund of $90,000.

For this amount of money our church of today would have been completed, the church yard fixed, the sidewalks layed of asphalt, and in the treasury we would have $15,000 left for other necessities. There would have been no debts, the priest would have been good, and we good to the priest; there would have been no riots, neither the calumniators nor the infidels. But what would the priest do if there have been no debts? On what excuse would the priest have asked the people for more money.

The priests have established the serfdom for us, to pay $6 per head a year, now then, you poor ignorant little fellows must pay, your children 6 and your children's children will pay, and there will he no end to the debt, because the debt on the church will grow indefinitely. Is it not the same way with the Poles?

We have this situation because the priest holds the money higher than God himself and the affairs of the parish, and for this reason only the priest, with all his power, wants to control the parish treasury, and whoever is against the priest's scheme, the priest calls him an infidel. Today we have seen the priest's statement of 1895:

Income of 1895	$16,000
Income of 1896	34,000
From the Milwaukee bank mortgage	15,000
Total of three years' income is	65,000

7

Now then, what has the priest done with those $65,000?

He has built the residence for	$9,000
The church basement for	18,000
Total	27,000

But at the same time the priest made the same amount of debt on the church; now then, where did the people's money go to? We are not asking for anything more than for an explanation of where the money went to? Where was the money invested? Did the money go for God's glory, or for the banquets for the priest's personal guests, or for the increase of the prestige of the priest's name by increasing his savings account in the bank?

When our societies, they are the founders of the parish, were trying to call the parish meeting, our rector, though he did not try to stop the meeting directly, informed the delegates that if the societies dared to raise the question about the parish budget, they would be 8 thrown out from the parish. Furthermore, he is threatening that if the societies dared to ask him for a complete accounting, then he would force the parish to pay the wages for the nuns he had brought to the Lithuanian school, and the wages to his assistant, to whom, as the priest says, he is paying the wages from his own pocket (or he may pay from the parish budget because the budget is not under the control of the parish.) The parish hired only one priest, Krawczunas, to fulfill the service of the parish, and for such a service the parish pays him the wages. If the priest cannot fulfill his duties, as he is traveling around in Chicago and organizing new parishes, this also increases the priest's profit, then he himself must pay the wages to his assistant who is staying at the parish, when our priest is collecting for himself more money outside of his parish. About those Polish nuns who do not know the Lithuanian language, we have no benefit from them, and while the priest brought them from his own accord, so there is no necessity for the parish to keep the nuns.

9

At present the priest announced in the church that he wants to collect more money from Lithuanians. For what does the priest need the money now? For the upkeep of Polish nuns, or to pay the interest on that secretly made mortgage? If the money is needed for the parish necessities, then the parish meeting ought to be called and stated what for the priest needs the money and how much, then the parish can decide for what and how much money is needed; but not like up to the present time, the money was collected from the people and nobody knows what for the money was spent, and at the same time the debts of the parish were increased fast.

Therefore, all the societies must call a general meeting and elect their own collectors. Then those people who want their money under control of the parish can donate their money to the collectors elected by the parishioners. Even though the priest does not like such arrangement, the parish budget would be under the control of parishioners, and there would be no necessity to beg the priest to give accounting of parish money. Then our rector would have no right to invest the parish 10 money for his private gain. Do this without delay. It is necessary for the parishioners to have unity among themselves, and to take the parish under their own control. Then the rector will be for the parish, but not the parish for the rector, as we have at present. Then the disagreement between the priest and the parish will disappear, because the priest will then take care of the church and the faithful, but not of the financial matters. Then our rector will understand that he is called here to be religious leader, but not a ruler and financier. Not the nose for the snuffbox, but the snuffbox for the nose, as the saying goes. Then the parish will not be for the priest, but the priest for the parish.