The monograph “The management and reuse of places of worship in a comparative perspective. An inquiry between Belgium, France, and Italy“ offers a reflection on the issues of management and reuse of religious buildings, already begun in a previous monograph, and now completed in this new volume through an in-depth study of the experiences of Belgium and France.
Although these countries have an ancient Catholic tradition, they have been undergoing a process of advanced secularisation for decades. The comparison with Italy aims to investigate how the different systems of relations between the state and religious denominations and the multiplicity of regulations involved affect the issuance of decrees of dismissal pursuant to canon 1222 § 2 and the implementation of proposals for reuse or mixed use in space or time. Proposals for solutions for the Italian context have thus been identified, inspired by international best practices based on dialogue, collaboration and participation.
Introduction
The issues of the surplus of Catholic places of worship in relation to the religious needs of the population and the possibility of reusing them for cultural or social purposes are becoming increasingly common in several European countries traditionally considered Catholic, such as Belgium, France and Italy. There are many reasons for this, linked to phenomena such as secularisation, the decline in the number of priests and religious, demographic decline and population movements. This is a complex and multidisciplinary challenge, as it cannot be addressed solely within the legal sphere (canon law, administrative law, constitutional law, private law, international law and European Union law, taken in isolation, cannot provide unique answers to the problem). Nor can it be addressed solely within a single discipline (the law certainly provides a good basis, but it must be built upon with an economic and management plan and an architectural project, taking into account the underlying theological, pastoral and social issues). Aware of this challenge, in 2018 we began a doctoral research programme at the University of Turin, Department of Law, which culminated in 2022 with the defence of a thesis that led to the publication of two monographs.
The first monograph, after presenting the theoretical issues in the legal and extra-legal fields, highlighting the cultural value underlying most of these properties, is specifically devoted to Italy. A case study of around 100 decrees reducing the use of buildings to secular purposes over the last 40 years in the Archdiocese of Turin is presented in a systematic manner in order to highlight critical issues and good practices. In light of this analysis, we have proposed innovative solutions that go beyond a case-by-case approach, such as classifying these buildings as ‘common goods’ – i.e. assets in which a community recognises itself and undertakes to care for – and the creation of ‘participation foundations’ or ‘trusts’ to manage the plurality of assets that will no longer be used for worship in an original and participatory manner, thus avoiding hasty disposal by the ecclesiastical authorities.
The second book, the result of two stays abroad, at KU Leuven in 2020 and at the University of Paris-Saclay in 2021, aimed to broaden the horizons of research in order to understand whether the solutions adopted in more secularised contexts than Italy could offer avenues for reflection before the situation becomes critical and unmanageable on the Peninsula.
The comparison between Belgium, France and Italy
The comparison between Belgium, France and Italy has shown how the different systems of relations between the state and religious denominations, as well as the multiplicity of regulations involved, affect the issuance of decrees of decommissioning within the meaning of can. 1222 § 2, as well as the implementation of assumptions of reuse or mixed use in space or time.
In Belgium, fabriques d’église or vestry boards, public law bodies responsible for the material aspects of worship, are still active and deal specifically with Catholic churches built before 1802 and still owned by the municipalities. In light of the federal form of government that characterises the Kingdom of Belgium, the former Napoleonic regulations can be amended independently by each of the three regions of Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels-Capital, as well as by the German-speaking Community.
In particular, in Flanders, the “strategic plan for the future of Catholic parish churches” was introduced several years ago. It obliges civil and religious authorities, as well as vestry boards, to discuss and reflect together on the current and future use of churches, with a view to their cultural enhancement, mixed use in terms of space or time, or reuse for secular purposes. This is certainly an imposed and not a spontaneous participation, on which the granting of regional and municipal subsidies is now conditional. In Wallonia, on the other hand, no consensus has yet been reached on reform, but we believe that the regional government will eventually intervene on this issue, if only for economic reasons. In our opinion, it will be difficult to follow the separatist model of Luxembourg, which in 2018 saw the abolition of fabriques d’églises, replaced by a diocesan fund to which ownership of churches that were already public was transferred. However, all interventions will certainly aim to reduce public contributions in this area, given the decline in the number of worshippers attending services.
In the French case, where the Catholic Church did not establish religious associations, this led to the acquisition by the State of churches built after the Napoleonic Concordat of 1801 and before the entry into force of the 1905 law on the separation of church and state. The solution adopted by the courts and implemented by Article L2124-31 of the general code of public property is that of an agreement between the municipalities that own the property and the religious authority that uses it, in order to regulate cultural visits and any other secular activities deemed compatible with worship by the parish priest. It is also worth noting the recent convening of the États généraux du patrimoine culturel religieux français (General Assembly on French Religious Cultural Heritage) and the launch of a national fundraising campaign, which show that these properties are of interest to a wider community than just the faithful, even in a context of strong secularisation and strict separation.
In Italy, there does not yet seem to be full awareness of the issue, and there are no reliable data on the number of churches that have already been officially deconsecrated or even simply closed for worship. What is certain is that this is an immense heritage (there are an estimated 100,000 Catholic places of worship, at least 80% of which meet the conditions for inclusion in the cultural heritage, in accordance with national legislation, with all the consequences and obligations for the owner in terms of conservation). Proportionally, there are likely to be thousands of churches that are closed or no longer used for worship. However, the most significant difference with Belgium and France is that churches are directly owned by civilly recognised ecclesiastical entities (dioceses, parishes, institutes of consecrated life, confraternities, etc.), which means that they are subject to private rather than public ownership. For this reason, the risk of alienation or abandonment is all the greater when the community is no longer able to manage its property independently. It is therefore necessary to bring together the forces of ecclesiastical entities, public authorities, businesses, third sector organisations and private citizens, through management solutions that allow the participation of a plurality of stakeholders interested in the future of these properties.
In conclusion, what can we learn from this comparison?
With regard to Belgium, it can be said that the fabriques system has helped to maintain a link between the community and each place of worship, even though the coverage of deficits by municipalities is increasingly subject to restrictions. At the same time, it is interesting to note that, without any reference to the category of ‘common goods’, Belgian churches are already de facto common goods, given their public ownership and special management system. In France, at least as far as the cultural valorisation of Catholic churches is concerned, the rigid system of separation is being relaxed in favour of a principle of collaboration between the State and the Church. In Italy, all these factors lead us to conclude that there is a need to amend national legislation and specific canon law in order to facilitate community participation in identifying new uses and to promote solutions for mixed use in terms of space or time, which are peacefully accepted in Belgium, as opposed to decommissioning and reuse.
The latter, when it cannot be avoided, should in any case be reserved for social or cultural uses capable of generating positive effects on the community, possibly through the involvement of third sector entities. Even when reduced to a non-inappropriate use, Catholic churches retain a value for the entire civil community, regardless of individual religious affiliation. In light of the theory of common goods, they should be managed using governance models capable of reconciling a plurality of different interests, both religious and cultural, with an emphasis on community participation in decision-making and management. This is also the perspective of the international conventions on cultural heritage (Paris 2003, Faro 2005), to which Italy has acceded but is still struggling to implement in practice. It is therefore time to change approach if we want to transform an objective problem into an extraordinary opportunity for the cultural, social and economic development of local communities.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
Davide Dimodugno is a Postdoctoral researcher in Canon Law and Law and Religion at the Law Department of the University of Turin (Italy), where he received his PhD in “Law and Institutions” with honours in 2022. He has been a visiting scholar at KU Leuven and UCLouvain (Belgium) and Université Paris-Saclay (France). He has published numerous contributions on ecclesial cultural heritage and reuse of buildings of worship and monastic heritage, as well as on religious freedom in pandemics, on participatory democracy and religions, and on “law and religion in opera”.
He has participated in dozens of national and international conferences and webinars, including the FRH Biennial Conference “Europe’s Living Religious Heritage” (Bologna Session, “Continuity in Community Connection and Dialogue”, 24 September 2021). Since 2020 he has been a member of Centro Studi Cherubino Ghirardacci, a study centre in Bologna (Italy) affiliated to FRH.
Since 2023 he has been a member of ICOMOS, International Council for Monuments and Sites, FRH, Future for Religious Heritage, ESACH, European Students’ Association for Cultural Heritage, EUARE, European Academy of Religion, ICLARS, International Consortium for Law and Religion Studies, and an aggregate member of ADEC, Association of Academics in Law and Religion in Italy. He is licensed to practice law.
See personal profile, with contact details and research products
Article published on 30 June 2025.
Follow us: