He’s a interesting question to make you realise that you really should spend more time reading the European section of the worthy papers: Which state is the only one not signed up to the European convention on Human Rights?
Dear reader, take your time. Pause for thought … No clues, I’m afraid, but you can phone a friend.
If you think you are on a roll, here’s another one: Which European state has a national industry with a turn-over in excess of 4 billion euros, but which hardly pays a centime in tax?
Go on, admit it. If you didn’t already know the answers you have cheated by now and tried to guess it by looking at the tags at the bottom of the posting.
Well, I have to confess, ‘Liechenstein’ was put there to throw you off the scent. The answer to both questions is the Vatican. And the Vatican is not in a happy state at the moment.
The problem is the press - well, to be specific, La Repubblica, which has started to publish a series of articles investigating the Vatican finances, and the cost of the Vatican to the Italian state. The relationship between the Vatican and Italy is complex, and expensive for the Italians, most of whom do not appreciate the full costs. La Repubblica is trying to find out the figures and bring them to a wider audience. Thanks to Graeme A.Hunter and a site called Concordat Watch, those press articles are now available to non-Italian speakers.
The Vatican exists both in the heart of the Italian capital city and in its constitution. In 1870 the Italian army entered Rome and put an end to the existence of the Papal States (the western part of central Italy). However, in compensation, the Italian government allowed the pope to retain many of the privileges that he would have enjoyed had he continued to rule over the Papal States (including full diplomatic immunity). There is also a history of various governments granting the Catholic Church further financial compensation and privileges. In an increasingly secular Europe, and years after some these agreements were signed, a number of people (including some in Italy) are starting to question the wisdom and justice of the financial arrangements and cost to the Italian tax-payer.
Two examples will illustrate the nature and size of the problem. First, there is the little ‘votive chapel’ loophole. According to La Repubblica the EU are preparing to take the Italian government to court over the tax breaks accorded to the Catholic Church in defiance of the EU anti-competition rules. At the centre of the court case is the exemption from buildings tax given to the Church’s commercial activities. Attempts were made by secularists to limit this tax exemption to sites without any commercial purpose - churches, chapels, shrines, libraries, parochial offices. However, a loophole was inserted into the legislation to extend exemption to all Catholic buildings that were ‘not exclusively commercial’. Now, by inserting a small votive chapel into the wall of otherwise commercial buildings such as shops, hotels, and restaurants, the church pays only between 5 and 10 percent of the tax otherwise owed to the Italian state. It has been estimated that the Italian state is currently losing 400 million euros a year. The cumulative historical losses run into billions.
The second example concerns the tourist industry. The Vatican is heavily involved in the tourist industry. If you want to, you can fly to Lourdes on ORP (Roman Official Pilgrimage) planes that have “The Lord is all around” embroidered on the headrests. ORP has agreements with 2500 agents and a network of referrers. Each year the Italian Catholic church handles a throughput of 40 million visitors, 19 million reservations, 250 thousand bed places, in 4 thousand establishments. The annual turnover is in excess of 4 billion euros, three times that of the leading rival Italian tour operator. Both the ORP and the APSA (the Vatican Department of Administrative affairs with responsibility for church buildings and numerous hotels) have off-shore tax status. Amongst other things, this, in practice, means they don’t have to submit accounts and can bypass Italian tax law. In addition to avoiding commercial building tax, they also avoid having to pay tax on the wages of the people employed in these establishments. In the competitive hotel market, the Church is able to offer room rates much below the non-Catholic equivalent.
When La Repubblica started to remind its Italian readership of these strange fiscal arrangements, the Vatican started to protest. “Let’s stop this,” exhorted the Secretary of State at the Holy See, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone. “Let’s put an end to this tale about Church finances. The pathway to faith in God brings nothing but benefits to society …”
Oh dear… oh dear! I won’t elaborate here (see my previous posting) about the benefits of the Roman Catholic Church to society. I am sure the situation is more complex than a simple, brief blog analysis can provide, but suffice it to say that phrases like ‘Dark Ages’, ‘Copernicus’, ‘Inquisition’, ‘antisemitism’, ‘condoms and AIDS’ and ‘paedophilia‘ somehow spring to mind. However, in issuing such injunctions rather than in having an open and honest debate about the state of the Vatican finances, the Cardinal is revealing something of the outdated attitude within the church. It would interesting to hear the reasons why the Church should have such uncompetitive privileges in a modern democracy (presumably the money could pay for better hospitals and schools and more access to justice for the poor). Unfortunately it still feels a bit like a group of older men being patronising and regretting that they can no longer censor the press. They have not yet realized that as they fail to adapt, they seem, to many, an absurd anachronism, increasingly bereft of moral and spiritual authority.
Didn’t Jesus teach his disciples to “render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s”? Even the Queen of England could read the writing on her wall and has elected to start paying taxes. It will be interesting to watch how long this financial favoritism will be tolerated in Italy - sadly, for a long while, I suspect.
_______
See also:
The case of the Italian judge who refused to allow a crucifix in his court is explored in this fascinating film. The fight for separation of Church and State in a country where the Vatican still thinks it governs. A must-see.
I’ve always known that the Vatican had a one-sided relationship with Italy, but I didn’t know these sorts of details. It is obvious that Vatican lawyers have found loopholes in the laws and found ways to exploit them to the fullest. Votive chapels, indeed! This is yet another example of the church, in this case, the Church, being hypocritical. And then Christians claim not to understand why people turn away from their faith in disgust. Move along, folks: there’s no evidence of the Holy Spirit to be seen here.
[...] Render unto Caesar … [...]
[...] that some faiths have - for example, government money going to support religious schooling, various tax concessions, and bishops in the House of [...]
Big business, indeed. I used “corporation” as a comparison in my post, but I’d forgotten they really are one. And one that has an unfair advantage in the marketplace. What about some anti-trust action?
They used to own Coca-Cola. Do they still have an interest in it? And, if they do, do they manage to write it off somehow?
I don’t know about Coca-Cola, but given their track record, I feel fairly confident that they would write it off as a legitimate spiritual expense.
[...] before about how churches sometimes want to use tax laws to their unreasonable advantage, and how in Italy at least, this is costing the state [...]
Jesus, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but render unto God what is God’s.
Inquisitor: “But Jesus, what is God’s and what is Caesar’s?”
Jesus, “What do the Scriptures say?”
IQ, “Ah, Psalms 24:1 says, “The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it.”
Jesus, “You have answered well my child.”
IQ, “But what then is Caesar’s?”
Jesus, “The rest is his.”
IQ, “I don’t get it.”
Jesus, “Neither does Caesar. But don’t fell bad, Christian-church scholars have misinterpreted these explicit words of mine for 17 centuries, ever since their church was enthralled by Rome and they began to receive a share in the booty. I told them they could only serve one master, but, nooo, they were loyal, patriotic citizens of the State. Even when their other master turned them into tax slaves they remained loyal subjects, if rather subjugated ones. There’s just no accounting for the depth of stupidity among those who try to serve two masters.”
http:www.jesus-on-taxes.com/
[...] the church is still taking millions of euros by avoiding tax. As I wrote in a previous posting, Render Unto Caesar: According to La Repubblica the EU are preparing to take the Italian government to court over the [...]
[...] acting, not against the church per se, but against the power that the church has held in Spain (and continues to hold in Italy) over a number of years. It is acting to restore equal human rights to non-Catholics and remove [...]
Indeed, the Vatican has not signed the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, this information is incomplete without the observation that the Vatican is not a member of the Council of Europe; it is only an observer, like the United States, Canada, Japan and Mexico (see http://www.coe.int/T/e/Com/about_coe/). It seems that only members of the Council of Europe can sign and ratify the ECHR.
Of course, the Vatican’s inquisition tribunal, now know as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, violates Article 6 of the ECHR (fair trial) because the inquisition tribunal is both judge and prosecutor in any case that is brought to it. So the Vatican has “good reasons” not to sign the ECHR as long as this tribunal exists.
[...] community fund. He claims that he is exempt from such things. He is above them. His business keeps most of the money that it earns, putting it at a considerable commercial advantage. It is not really understood why [...]