by David M. Jaeger

Despite the commitments made in the Fundamental Accord with the Holy See, the Israeli government continues to put in place bureaucratic obstacles for priests, religious and sisters called to carry out there mission in the Holy Land.

Years have passed, yet despite the Israeli governments promises, priests and nuns who leave Israel with the intention of returning still need a new re-entry visa from Israeli consulates, which they do not always obtain and often take months of exasperating paperwork.  Up until now religious authorities have avoided public protest, with the hope of encouraging change through discreet negotiations with competent civil authorities.   Terrasanta.net has published an article on the issue with a comment by Father David M. Jaeger, a Franciscan jurist who is part of the Custody for the Holy Land, which we republish below.

 Jerusalem (AsiaNews) – Once again and in the latest episode, reports emerge from the Holy Land of yet another “wave” of refused visas and entry permits for ecclesiastical and religious personnel – priests, brothers and religious sisters – vital for the life of the Church, its parishes, schools and other religious and social work.  As before, the situation worsens by the day. For example, while I write this article, the entire Syro-Catholic faithful of Jerusalem is being deprived of their only priest, appointed to celebrate Mass and all of their other sacred rites. The priest exists.  He is my guest here in Rome, but has been waiting, so far in vane, for the visa which will allow him to make the journey to take up his post.

They are veritable “tidal waves”, recurring “tsunamis”, which are crashing around us with increasing frequency, and in certain ways with greater severity.

It is possible (anything is possible) that by the time you read this article the current crises will have passed, or even have worsened.  At least until the next occasion – and as recent history has taught us there will be a next time – even though we know neither the day nor the hour.  Perhaps with the next Minister or government, or even more simply, according to the mood of some plenipotentiary who directs these matters behind the curtains….

And yet….and yet in its Fundamental Accord, signed on December 30th 1993, in vigour as of March 10th 1994, the State of Israel explicitly recognised, in article 3 paragraph 2, the «right of the Catholic Church to from, appoint and deploy its own personnel» in its own institutions in order to carry out its functions.  The sense of this «deploy» was crystal clear to the representatives of the State who accepted this precise formula. I am a witness to this myself as I was present at all of the sessions in which it was discussed.  The point was this: the right of the Church to obtain the necessary authorisation from the State for the entry and permanence of its personnel posted by the ecclesial Authorities to carry out their office in the Holy Land, Israel and Palestinian territories controlled by them. Now this is also true: the Accord also intended to recognise at the same time – how could it refuse? – The right and duty of the sovereign State to regulate entry onto its territories of individuals who have no individual right or title to do so, that is foreigners, above all for security reasons.  And it is also true that many of the priests and religious who the Church needs to «deploy» in the Holy Land (where the most part of the faithful are Arab speakers) are citizens of Arab nations not exactly on friendly terms or even openly hostile with Jewish State, which would certainly justify the state’s special attention to visa requests pertaining to them.

And so? And so here we find the need for a norm, a transparent norm, which sets down the legitimate needs of the state and establishes an iter, procedures for the certification of the «non-dangerous nature» of individual priest’s religious men and women at the service of their faithful.  A fundamental dimension to these repeated crises is in fact this: such a norm does not exist, no norms exist, no single or stabile procedure, except those that may exist in the locked cabinets or impenetrable minds of certain officials, which reveal themselves to be highly changeable.

The Fundamental Accord instead, by comparing the previously cited article 3 paragraph 2 with article 12, already sets out an agreed norm, a pact, that entirely respects the rights of the Church with the legitimate needs of the State.  As news agencies have repeatedly revealed, already in 1994 the Parties agreed to negotiate on this issue.  The time has come to do so.

 

• ISRAEL
• HOLY
• LAND
• RELIGIOUS
• PRIESTS
• NUNS
• BROTHERS
• FUNDAMENTAL
• ACCORD