What’s this all about, anyway? I get that the Church doesn’t want to pay taxes, because, well, the Church is rich and wants to stay that way, and not paying taxes is a great way to stay rich. But what the heck is “access” to Israeli courts?
Katsav said he told the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, that he would do everything possible to “accelerate” talks on the church’s tax status “and to answer positively to the requests of the church.”
The Vatican is seeking ways to lessen its tax burden as one of the significant land owners in the Holy Land and wants access to Israeli courts to handle any quarrels over ownership.
I have a few questions here:
- Why should the Church get a tax break in the land of the Jews?
- What kind of “access” are they talking about? The ability to gainsay decisions?
- How did the Church get to be such a huge landowner? Should the word “Crusades” come to mind when we answer this question?
Any way you look at this, I sense a royal screwing ahead. And not for the Church.
Not royal — papal.
I doubt land ownership by the Catholic Church dates back to the Crusades. I’d guess the land was acquired during Turkish times through the pressure of European countries on the Turkish government to allow land purchases (France in particular) or the land was bought during the Mandate period. It’s probably endowment land to support various pilgrimage sites and the priests and monks who serve in them. I expect that the Muslim Waqf that runs the Mosques on the Temple Mount (which they are now busily destroying, threatening the mosques) also owns a good deal of land as endowment for the foundation.
A Catholic answers:
1. Because Israel is a democracy and religious institutions are considered to be on even levels, though it is a Jewish state. The actual definition of Israel’s status as a Rabbinic state versus being a democracy for the Jewish people is always under contest – but I’m going to assume it’s the latter since I am not one to believe that Israel is a theocracy. That’s the answer, Israel isn’t a theocracy and grants equal rights to all, regardless of religion. Rose colored glasses? Maybe, but it’s a worthy ideal.
2. Access as in to settle disputes over ownership. There’s always great disagreement, particularly in places like Bethlehem, where land boundaries and ownership (which does date back hundreds of years to this monastic order or that tribe) are old and contentious issues. Christians are a growing population in Israel (as opposed to the rest of the middle east) as they flee places like the PA controlled territories, Lebanon, Egypt, and Iraq (to name a few), giving the Church a growing voice. Access to courts, from what I imagine, is exactly what it says – to settle ownership challenges and have an institutional forum to voice both concern and contest.
3. Now Meryl, I love you and your site, but it seems even you cannot escape the popularity of Crusade revisionism that seems to be so in vogue lately. I was up at a David Project training this past summer and my Jewish colleagues were shocked to hear that the Crusades were not in fact wars of aggression against non-Christians. They were in fact first conceived as defensive wars against a united and very threatening Islamic empire that had just taken Byzantium’s Anatolia – its heartland and source of its greatest strengths. With the great schism still fresh, the Pope sought to reunify Christendom and answered the Eastern call for aid – the crusades. I highly recommend you and everyone else, to learn more, to read Thomas Madden’s article on the Crusades in from Crisis Magazine.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
Shalom Alechem
Anton
… and about the Church, I think you should give it the benefit of the doubt. Pope Benedict, in stark contrast to the wets in the C of E and pretty much every other mainline Protestant church, is very clear – to Muslims, no less – that terrorism must be confronted.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/religion/cst-nws-pope20.html
And yet, the Crusaders managed to massacre Jews every time they attempted to, ah, stem the hordes of Islam, in spite of various calls to stop.
I’m afraid no matter which way you look at it, the Crusades sucked for the Jews.
That article you reference calls the massacre of Jews during the Crusades “collateral damage.” Collateral damage is what happens when you’re aiming for the enemy and instead, hit innocents. The Crusaders were aiming for the Jews. They figured they’d warm up in their war on Muslims by murdering a few thousand Jews along the way.
Their deaths weren’t “collateral.”
If that’s the kind of apologia coming out of Catholic scholars these days, nope, I’m not giving the Pope the benefit of the doubt.
Yes collateral. You have to understand war in the context in which it was fought. At the time, as I’m sure you know, it was a routine tactic to eliminate the resisting population. So while one may say that the Christian armies mercilessly butchered Muslims indiscriminantly, you cannot say such a thing without mentioning that Muslims did the exact same thing. In fact, the Torah is full of interesting vignettes about annihilating the enemy in their entirety, but if you reported on that today the coverage may be something like this: “More violence in the Middle East as Hebrews slaughtered an entire Ishamaili city today.” Come on.
Also, the most prominent massacre that occurred in Jerusalem existed in not only the context as described above, but led by a certain Peter the Hermit, who was led a vulgar army of fanatical peasants – not to be confused with the later expeditions led by nobles. Say what you want about the feudal system, but the noble classes were certainly more educated and thus a little more liberal than their peasant bretheren (though obviously not so enough to grant them suffrage but that’s a different discussion). One should not attribute the actions of what your link describes as a “rabble army” with the ideals and goals of the Crusades.
By the way, we spoke a couple of months ago at your synagogue. :)
“Why should the Church get a tax break in the land of the Jews?”
In the US, almost all property owned by religious organizations is tax free. This includes *all* religions, right down to the Scientologists and the Moonies.
Charities also own property tax free, from the Red Cross down to all the little soup kitchens.
Now Israel is small, land is scarce, and perhaps an argument can be made that the country can’t afford to give these tax breaks to such a large number of groups. But as long as Israel remains committed to having a secular government, they can hardly justify discriminating between religions.
“What kind of “access†are they talking about? The ability to gainsay decisions?”
Yes. That would be the same access to courts that everyone else has.
“How did the Church get to be such a huge landowner? Should the word “Crusades†come to mind when we answer this question?”
No. More recently than the Crusades, Israel was controlled by the Ottomans, the Jordanians, and the British.
Um. Israel isn’t the U.S., and it isn’t quite a secular government. And I wouldn’t say that the nation is committed to keeping itself secular, either. Judaism is a religion and a culture. People don’t seem to be able to get that.
“Gainsay” means to negate decisions. I’m thinking access to the courts means you can petition the courts, which, uh, they can already do.
Church owning land in Israel: Y’know, I’m trying to wrap my mind around a concept. See, Israel was orginally and undoubtedly the Jewish homeland. The palestinians are claiming land rights because they were there, too. The Catholics are claiming land rights because they were there, too.
But for some reason, nobody ever seems to think that the Jews deserve land rights in the nation that they made.
Here’s a thought: Howsabout in the land of the Jews, the Jews get to finally make the laws and the decisions, and everyone else has to just suck it up–like the Jews have had to do for thousands of years.
Access to Israeli courts is important when the contesting parties are the Christian sects disputing rights to churches in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, etc.
chsw10605
westchesterweblog.blogspot.com
…huh? Who said that?
Well string me up and tar me for believing that non-Jews should have rights in a democracy. Maybe what Israel needs is a kind of “council of guardians” or “Guardian Council,” if you will, to “protect” the country from those devlish Christian influences.
Because Judaism is a religion and a culture does not mean that its religion should have a primacy that overrules equality – something I’m usually told Israel is committed.
You seem to believe something nuts like the Church is intent on carving out their own state like the Palestinians which, of course, is ridiculous because there is no such movement or support for such a movement. Relax. Chill.