Special law for Rome, how to reform the Concordat with the Catholic Church: a proposal for good governance

The adoption of a special law for Rome as Capital could, indeed should, draw the attention of institutions to the need for a radical reform of the Concordat with the Catholic Church. The daily call to provide a state to a people that has never had one offers the opportunity for a structural reflection on the role and functions—and usefulness for those who live there—of absolute state sovereignty and, perhaps, even on the peculiarities of a state without a people: the Holy See.

Entrusting the capital of the Italian Republic, a state with partial sovereignty as a member of the UN and the European Union, with the power to legislate on multiple matters should prompt a review of what has been granted for 100 years to one of its internationally recognized neighborhoods, which, however, has not ratified the main international human rights instruments, which enjoys absolute sovereignty and broad exceptions on multiple matters, and, unsurprisingly, which passes a large portion of its operating costs on to the host state. The "effective " management of Jubilee 2025 —efficient in terms of (perhaps) the quality of hospitality for millions of pilgrims, but completely unsatisfactory in terms of the quality for those who live in that city year- round —is enough to realize that the problems are not only related to the increase in attendance, but also to the precarious fulfillment of promises of renovation, renewal, expansion, and improvement of often crumbling infrastructure. What good are special powers if it takes “big events” to make something happen?

The proposal will be dismissed as a typical provocation of 19th-century anticlericalism, even if it were, but it isn't. It would be a merited note because it is in line with some of the most square and inspired political and cultural traditions that achieved Italian unification—which occurred precisely on September 20, 1870, and not when the patriotic "regime" established it by law... It is a proposal for good governance. National good governance that could trigger (at least) economic and financial reforms in the Vatican City . A consequent further element of compliance with the need for transparency and attention to the Italian state coffers, both in terms of the quantity and quality of public spending, would then be (at least) the repeal of the system of automatic redistribution of the unexpressed 8×1000 tax. Indeed, as is unknown, for the past twenty years or so, the amount not explicitly allocated to one of the various religious denominations recognized by the state, or to the state itself, which does not advertise for itself, is redistributed based on the percentages expressed. If 30% of taxpayers choose the Catholic Church , i.e., the Italian Episcopal Conference, the amount it receives will be 70% of the total 8×1000 taxpayers receive, which, according to the CEI , amounts to one billion a year!

In Italy, it's considered vulgar to mix certain topics—especially when charitable works are involved—but a country with one of the highest public debts in the world, with no prospects for economic growth, and a population experiencing staggering levels of unemployment due to both demographics and a lack of employment opportunities deemed unsatisfactory, cannot help but dip its toes in a secular way and do some math. For example, was it necessary to hire over 6,000 religion teachers when there are tens of thousands of precarious workers in public education? Or when the national public research budget is a tenth (at best) of a private German institute? Or in an era when churches, seminaries, and convents are either empty or devoid of Italian-made vocations?

The last three popes have (perhaps) done their best to initiate reforms regarding the Vatican's banking and financial institutions; the lack of transparency and the uncertainty of jurisdiction (rather than law) do not seem to have achieved their intended goal. The Vatican coffers are in the red, and crimes committed by the clergy often go unprosecuted, in contempt of the rule of law and to the detriment of the victims. If it is necessary to invoke some anticlerical thinking to bring the already unanimously prepared legislator to reason, we will have to accept it. In a country that, as Marco Pannella denounced, has not experienced the Reformation but only counter-reforms, invoking 19th-century thinkers and patriots to address the reality of the Third Millennium seems to me to be too little. Who will do it?

FROM

Marco Perduca