Laity is a very complex issue in every European country and the relaunch of the debate on the relations between State and Church reveals old and unsolved controversies. While in Italy in these days the Vatican’s exemption from the ICI (or IMU) property tax has generated a lot of discussion, in Luxembourg the most heated controversy concerns the project to build the famous “Houses of Laity”. The peculiarity of such a debate regards the parties involved. The dispute, indeed, does not involve only catholic and lay people, but embraces also the lay world.
In summer 2009, LSAP socialists and social Christians reached a deal for the creation of the “Maisons de la laïcité”, which should be afforded the same rights as other Churches through the stipulation of an agreement. This model is similar to that adopted in Belgium which, for fifteen years, has recognised and economically supported lay institutions. The Maisons present themselves as meeting places for all community members, who are involved in a number of lay ceremonies such as weddings, funerals, baptisms and rites of passage between childhood and adolescence. Obviously, the Maisons will receive public funding. In particular, the State will cover 75% of the expenses of regional centres and the associations managing them will receive a forfeit endowment for the cost of running.
So, is everything ok? Well, not properly. On the one hand, Social Christians (CSV) have always supported the project, claiming that the “Maisons de la laïcité” are the expression of pluralism and correspond to the agreements stipulated between the State and other religious confessions”. On the other, lay world is in ferment and a part of it expressly opposes the creation of the Maisons, which would strengthen the position of Churches in the public space. This is what Manuel Hass, a prominent representative of the AHA (Alliance des humanistes athées et agnostiques), thinks. He believes that such a project may consolidate religious privileges. It is evident, indeed, that the opening of the Maisons implies the tacit approval of the agreements between the State and the Church. Manuel Hass says, “The strategy of CSVs is that of reinterpreting laity as a religion for non religious people, in order to defend the position of strength of catholic faith in our society. The Maisons of Laity betray the constitutive principle of laity: the State must not privilege any philosophical trend”, and not even laity. On the contrary, mayor of Sanem and LSAP representative Georges Engel opposes all criticisms and keeps on arguing that the project aims at defending the lay and civil spirit of the State.
We may conclude that these are simply different points of view but, actually, the fuse has been lighted and the debate is extremely heated, even if the law will be presented next year. We will see if, in the future, the house of Peter will be surrounded by the houses of Leibniz, Giordano Bruno as well. However, we are sure that in Italy on the rock of Peter no ICO or IMU property tax will be imposed, not even in 2012.
In brief: In Italy you have to pay for the rock of Peter, in Luxembourg they say that if Peter has a rock, let us have a rock too!
On the inside: