For several years our country has become a land of immigration, many people hope in the fact to improve their lives, or their economic conditions are trying their luck facing many difficulties, first of all integration.
Living with these populations has led to the need for a comparison between our culture and the "the other" . A leading role in this context is played dall'estrinsecazione of their religious faith. This phenomenon is a fundamental need of every man, the founding fathers seemed to pay attention to this need, in fact the ' art. 19 of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right to profess freely their religion in any form, individually or in combination, and to disseminate it in private or in public worship, provided that the rites are not contrary to morality (1) .
the light of Article. 19 of the Constitution it is easy to assume that assume major importance to the right of every religion to enjoy a suitable area extrinsic to their faith, be it a church, a mosque, a synagogue, et cetera ...
the legislature to ' art. 831 cc provides that the assets of ecclesiastical bodies are subject to the rules of common law, as otherwise provided by special laws that affect them. The rule in question relies on the regulation of such goods to the rules of civil law, however, the last part of it is expressly stated that there may be other provisions.
One of these is the LN 121 of 03.25.1985, Agreement (Villa Madama) that all ' art. 5, paragraph 1 and 3 provides that the buildings open for worship can not be seized, occupied, expropriated or demolished except for compelling reasons and in agreement with the competent ecclesiastical authority. In the second paragraph, that provision states that the civil authorities take into account the religious needs of the people, put forth by the competent ecclesiastical authority, as regards the construction of new buildings for Catholic worship and relevant works parrocchiali.Tali powers were granted to other denominations only after some time, and by virtue of ' art. 8, paragraph 3 of the Constitution
The peculiarity, however, which I think is referred to in the second paragraph of Article . 831 cc fact, the legislature says "The buildings for public use of the Catholic faith, even if privately owned, can not be taken away from their destination even for the alienation effect, until the destination itself did not cease in accordance with delle leggi che li riguardano”. Per edificio di culto si intende un luogo volto alla “regolare ufficiatura della chiesa” (2) , in cui vi sia l’afflusso di fedeli e dove sia consentito a chiunque di potervi entrare (3) .E’agevole desumere, dalla norma suddetta, che il legislatore del’42 abbia voluto garantire un privilegio alla confessione cattolica, giacché solo questi edifici, nonostante siano disciplinati dalle norme di diritto privato (e quindi alienati o usucapiti ), non possono essere mutatinella loro destinazione fino al momento della loro sconsacrazione.
Per porre be in such an act, it is necessary that the bishop of the diocese could also give rise to destination, by decree, when it can no longer be restored or used for worship under cann. 1212 and 1222, or when the building was largely destroyed or deputy to profane use. (Regarding the latter case several years ago he caused a sensation in the fact that a church in Abruzzo had been shot scenes of a porn movie ( 4) ). An equivalent privilege is also allowed to buildings Jewish worship within the meaning of ' art. No 15 of 1989 101 .
Article, 831, comma 2, cc is in linea con la politica del regime fascista, che da un lato cristallizzava norme repressive e razziste e dall’altro “strizzava l’occhio” alla Chiesa Cattolica Romana al mero fine di garantirsi un largo consenso da parte dei consociati.
La ratio sottesa alla norma era quella di favor verso le istituzioni cattoliche, al fine di ottenere un’ampia legittimazione, in un paese come l’Italia, in cui la religione giocava ( e gioca tuttora ) un ruolo fondamentale(5).
Secondo la mia modesta opinione, l’art. 831, comma 2, c.c., si pone in contrasto con il principio di laicità ( Articles. 2, 3, 7, 8, 19, 20 Constitution), and the principle of equality ( art. 3 of the Constitution) as it is allowed only two denominations (the Catholic and the Jewish ) to take advantage of the option to make permanent the target of religious buildings owned by them.
This rule appears in the present historical moment, as more unfair in respect of certain religions such as Islam, are placed in some areas of our country, strong opposition to building mosques or places of worship such as to enable the manifestation of religious faith, ie a basic human need which is a "supreme principle with rank higher than the Charter itself," (6) .
However, for the writer's opinion, the appropriate remedy to that question is' legislative action that, in light of the principle of secularism (Articles 2, 3, 7, 8, 19, 20 of the Constitution ), I reach for my art. 832, paragraph 2, Civil Code, the repeal of this rule, or extending the same privilege to all other religions.
NOTE:
(1) C. Const No 195, 1993
(2) E. VITAL - AG Chizzoni, Manual shortly. ecclesiastical law, Giuffrè, Milan, 2008, pg. 109
(3) Cass. Civ., February 12, 1953, No 359
(4) La Repubblica. It, porno movies filmed in the church . Nulli rites celebrated http://www.repubblica.it/2003/i/sezioni/cronaca/marsica/marsica/marsica.html
(5) On the issue of legitimacy, see: R. Sacco, Anthropology legal Bologna, Il Mulino, 2007, pg. 129
(6) E. VITAL - AG Chizzoni, Manual shortly. ecclesiastical law, Giuffrè, Milan, 2008, pg. 6
you 
0 comments:
Post a Comment