that’s why it doesn’t attack the Conte government – Libero Quotidiano

If the first emergency shutdown could be summarized in an image, perhaps it would be that of the Carabinieri breaking into one church during a mass in the presence of some fifteen people, including six relatives of those killed by COVID-19 that he hadn’t had the funeral. There Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI), the permanent assembly of Italian bishops, during the closing of March and April did not open its mouth about government restrictions on religious matters, not even about the prohibition of “Extreme unction” or confession for those who were dying. Forbidden funerals and the obligation of cremation, this is what the Church has accepted. However, during the plagues or wars of the past, the Church has always been at the forefront in giving relief precisely to the sick according to the ancient Christian precept to visit the sick, a precept that goes back to the word of Jesus (Mt 25, 36). And let us not forget, to give just one example, Francis, the Saint, towards the lepers: “The Lord himself led me among them and I showed them mercy.”

Finally, the adaptation of the CEI to the governmental provisions on Christmas, with the well-known story of mass Christmas Eve at 10 pm and not at midnight. However, the bishops could have authorized the traditional midnight mass, informing the faithful of the sanctions provided by the Italian state, further recalling that the relations between the Italian State and the Catholic Church do not foresee any adaptation of one to the legislation of the other. The Church could do this and send a strong message to the whole world. In this sense the art. 7 out of Constitutionand thus it is expressed: “The State and the Catholic Church are, each in its own order, independent and sovereign.” It is the provision of constitutional rank that establishes the full independence and sovereignty of the State against the Church and vice versa, according to the liberal principle. “Free Church in a Free State”. The detailed regulation of relations passes through the agreed agreements: first the Lateran Pacts of 1929, then the 1984 Concordat. In the first place, it should be noted that neither norm of both treaties obliges the two orders to adapt to the Laws of the other. In particular, the 1984 Concordat, in addition to reaffirming that the two orders are independent and sovereign (art. 1), in the first paragraph of art. 7, expressly referring to art. 20 of the Constitution, “reaffirms that the ecclesiastical character and the purpose of the religion or worship of an association or institution cannot be the cause of special legislative limitations.”

The arrangement with creditors proposes the same content as art. 20 of the Constitution, and in the first place it responds to the need to guarantee the freedom of religious institutions and associations that cannot be subjected to special legislative limitations by the Italian State. There religious freedom and the manifestation of the cult, meet the only constitutional limit of “morality” and not that of public order or security (at the precise choice of the Constituent Assembly) and therefore cannot be limited by the State even in their public manifestation, as for example, going to church or gathering for a farewell funeral, if not for “morality” reasons. Other limitations, such as public order or health security, are not constitutionally contemplated or even provided for by the Concordat.

However, it all happened in the most deafening silence, in fact condescendingly, apart however holyand that, on the other hand, precisely on the basis of the Concordat, he could have objected. Religious freedom has even been restricted by simple government administrative acts. The famous dpcm in fact, they have limited freedom of assembly (calling it “assembly”) even in places of worship (churches in the first place), considered dangerous for the transmission of the virus. Funerals, Masses and religious amenities were prohibited. Bishops and Pontiff did not react, they obeyed. From “free church in free state” to state church, “collaborationist” with the government by “left”?