ROME — In the historic Sala Matteotti of Italy’s Camera dei Deputati, where law and legacy often converge, a quiet but urgent conversation unfolded this week about who gets to be officially recognized — and who remains invisible — under the country’s religious freedom laws.
The conference, titled “Senza Intese: Le nuove religioni alla prova dell’art. 8 della Costituzione“, moderated by the Observatory on Religious Entities, Ecclesiastical Property, and Nonprofit Organizations at the University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli.” It brought together scholars, legal experts, and representatives from diverse religious communities to examine the tension between constitutional ideals and outdated state mechanisms for recognizing faith groups.
Among the speakers was Professor Maria D’Arienzo, an authority on law and religion at the University of Naples Federico II and president of ADEC, the national association of university professors of Ecclesiastical Law of the State (specializing in the legal dimensions of religious phenomena).
Originally scheduled to deliver closing remarks, D’Arienzo was requested to open one of the roundtable discussions — offering an unfiltered reflection on how the Italian state continues to distinguish between religions in practice, even as its Constitution promises equality before the law.
The Constitutional Promise
D’Arienzo spoke directly to the heart of Article 8 of the Italian Constitution, which states that all religious confessions are equally free. Yet, she noted, only those that have signed formal agreements — known as intese — with the state gain access to tangible rights: tax allocations, chaplaincy roles in hospitals and prisons, and public recognition.
“This is where the confusion begins,” she said. “Recognition in law should not mean recognition in power.”
She pointed out that while the Constitution guarantees equal freedom regardless of whether a group has an intesa , the system still relies heavily on Law No. 1159 of 1929 , a relic of Mussolini’s era that governs how new religious groups can seek formal agreements with the government.
Though revised over time, this law creates a de facto hierarchy — one where some faith communities are seen as more legitimate than others.
The Perception of Exclusion
For many religious groups without intese , especially newer or minority faiths, the consequences are real: exclusion from institutional life, limited visibility, and difficulty securing places of worship.
Yet, D’Arienzo emphasized that this perception of exclusion shouldn’t be confused with constitutional inferiority.
“The lack of an intesa may be perceived as a lack of recognition,” she observed, “but it must not be interpreted as such. All confessions are legally equal.”
Still, she acknowledged that administrative practices often fall short of constitutional ideals. The process for obtaining an intesa is long, opaque, and politically charged — so much so that in over 40 years, only 13 new religious groups have successfully completed it.
A Shift Toward Bilateralism
Despite these challenges, D’Arienzo suggested that change is happening — quietly, locally, and through alternative channels.
She cited recent agreements made directly with ministries, such as one allowing non-Catholic ministers into prisons, even without a full intesa . These arrangements, she said, represent a shift away from top-down control toward a more flexible, decentralized model.
“This kind of bilateralism is becoming a tool for recognition,” she said. “It allows communities to step forward and say, ‘We exist, and we serve.’”
Her remarks echoed earlier presentations during the conference, including those by Professor Marco Ventura, who urged continued evolution of the legal framework in line with constitutional values, and Prefect Laura Lega, who called for expanding the dialogue beyond academia to include those living within these religious communities.
As the roundtable proceeded, the central question remained unresolved: How can a secular, pluralistic state live up to its constitutional promise when its tools for recognition remain rooted in a bygone era?
D’Arienzo didn’t pretend to have all the answers, but her message was clear: The law may guarantee equality — but true inclusion requires more than words.
———-
First published in this link of The European Times.
