Italy school crucifixes 'barred'


Catholicism stopped being the state religion in Italy in 1984
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the use of crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.

It said the practice violated the right of parents to educate their children as they saw fit, and ran counter to the child's right to freedom of religion.

The case was brought by an Italian mother, Soile Lautsi, who wants to give her children a secular education.

The Vatican said it was shocked by the ruling, calling it "wrong and myopic" to exclude the crucifix from education.

The ruling has sparked anger in the largely Catholic country, with one politician calling the move "shameful".

The Strasbourg court found that: "The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities... restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions."

It also restricted the "right of children to believe or not to believe", the seven judges ruling on the case said in a statement quoted by AFP news agency.

European identity

Mrs Lautsi complained to the European court that her children had to attend a public school in northern Italy that had crucifixes in every room.

She was awarded 5,000 euros ($7,400; �4,500) in damages.

Vatican spokesman the Rev Federico Lombardi said the European court had no right intervening in such a profoundly Italian matter, the Associated Press reported.

"It seems as if the court wanted to ignore the role of Christianity in forming Europe's identity, which was and remains essential."

He told Italian TV: "The crucifix has always been a sign of God's love, unity and hospitality to all humanity.

"It is unpleasant that it is considered a sign of division, exclusion or a restriction of freedom."

'Italian tradition'

Many politicians in Italy have reacted angrily.

Education Minister Mariastella Gelmini said the crucifix was a "symbol of our tradition", and not a mark of Catholicism.

One government minister called the ruling "shameful", while another said that Europe was forgetting its Christian heritage.

The government says it will appeal against the decision.

The BBC's Duncan Kennedy in Rome says that it is customary in Italy to see crucifixes in public buildings, including schools, despite the constitution saying that there should be a separation of church and state.

The law requiring crucifixes to be hung in schools dates back to the 1920s.

Although a revised accord between the Vatican and the Italian government ended Catholicism's position as the state religion in 1984, the crucifix law has never been repealed.

Some conservatives have already complained about schools dropping nativity plays to avoid upsetting Muslim children.

www.bbcnews.com [bbcnews.com]

Wow. Disturbing.

I knew the name of the woman in question didn't sound Italian, and sure enough upon Googling her, it appears she is Finnish!

Finland is one of the most areligious countries in the world (Top 4 I think?), and I find it particularly upsetting that a non-Italian from a de-Christianized country can singlehandedly succeed in "spitting on" the history of Italy. It really makes my blood boil.

And the fact that the European Court of Human Rights has such expansive power is a frightening thing, too. It should be using it's far-reaching influence, if it so insists on doing, to curb the Islamic fanaticism in France and other European nations.

Being part Italian (well...Sicilian!), and having at least a general idea of the "ethos" of that country, I can tell you that Italians are a proud grouping of people and this will probably be seen by the average Italian as a personal affront to his cultural tradition.

Lastly, I feel especially sad for our blessed Holy Father, who has as one of his main goals the salvaging of a general European Christian identity.

Regardless of whether the ruling is correct in the abstract, the whole thing, from the pitiful woman who brought the charges, to the Court which handed down the law, is an utter shame from top to bottom.

Alexis

I am completely in agreement with your words and sentiments, dear friend.

Alice

Who says Sicilians are "Italian"? We are Siciliano, paisan, and won't have anything to do with those Napolitani and snooty Romani, let alone the Milanese and Bolognese (we might give a nod in the direction of the Calabrese, out of respect for their viciousness). As for outsiders imposing their will upon us, let them remember the outcome of the Sicilian Vespers.

I am reminded of Bl. Restituta Kafka, the Viennese nun and nurse who was beheaded by the Nazis in 1943 for having, among other things, defied orders not to hang crucifixes in the rooms of a newly-built wing of the hospital where she worked. Pope JP2 beatified her as a martyr in 1998.

A question I have is how their vote will be enforced. Without enforcement measures it will be a condemnation. If the appeal is rejected will Italian school face consequences for baulking this "ruling"?

Terry

Stuart,

I know, I know! But Sicilians enjoy holding grudges so much that I'd assume that, in this particular situation, they might accept being referred to as Italian, just for this case!

Alexis

So, somewhere down the line, we settle all family business with the EU, right?

The EU Court of Human Rights has enforcement powers through the European Commission, which can impose economic sanctions on Italy for non-compliance. This can take the form of withholding grants and subsidies, to imposing an additional levy on the Italian contribution to the EU.

Since the Commission is not answerable to anyone, you can see how the anti-democratic aspects of the EU can have a corrosive effect not only on national identity, but on the very human rights it is supposed to uphold.

If people think a cross on the wall will do that, instead of a cross in their hearts, they're buying fools gold. Displays like this don't belong in public institutions in a pluralist society, and I am no fan of political correctness. The mother in this case is absolutely right, though I probably would not agree with much of the rest of her worldview.

Easy solution. Defund public education and send the kids to Catholic school. Let the secular humanists pay for their own schools, and then they can put anything they want on the walls.

But if it is a part of the cultural identity of the country as a whole it certainly has a place in the classroom.

When you think that the so-called "Human Rights" were invented in France precisely to get rid of religion from public space, it makes perfect sense.


That's why they won't allow that on mass scale in Europe. What's more, that a school is Catholic it doesn't necessarily mean that the principles of secularism may not be enforced on it - however strange it may sound. There was a precedent a few months ago. EU is more than godless in principles, it is antitheist.

Edit: I can't find the exact news now, but I think it had something to do with the Equality Act in the UK, or the Catholic Education Service's (presided by bishop Vincent Nicholas) document advocating creation of "prayer rooms" for non-catholics and adapting toilets for ritual Muslim ablutions - both in Catholic schools.

There is no easy solution, because you would have to build an entire infrastructure to oversee private schools. Your taxes would also more than likely be used to fund vouchers for schools that promote things you dislike even more than what is taught in public schools.

The worst part of all of this is you'll probably have some reactionary politicians coming out on the issue.

Suggesting what needs to be done is easy.

In the pre-revolutionary Europe schools were run by the Church, without any vouchers or state surveillance. But no modern state would allow the Church to act so freely, I guess.

The Irish Reform Schools for were running well in to the 20th century.

This article captures the outrage that I presumed would occur.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20091103/wl_csm/ocrucefix

Alexis

The moral damages awarded to the woman are ridiculous. All part of the culture of outrage though.

And to think that there are those who cannot understand why I always vote against the EU!

Fr. Serge

Three cheers for Vaclav Klaus!

One thing I'm considering is maybe I'm looking at this through the prism of being American, and not recognizing Italy is not America.

Ah, but I think, Father, that there may be ways of holding the same theological viewpoint and seeing the EU as an advantage.

I, for one, am simultaneously pleased with the Czech government for hesitating, and yet finally signing on. Cautious, thoughtful cooperation seems to me to be a helpful way forward.

I certainly balk at the Euroscepticism of UKIP here in Britain. Their sense of history extends only as far as WWII, and their social awareness no further than the Cotswalds.

I have just come back and re-read what I wrote, and it comes across as terribly smug. Sorry about that.

Do feel free to agree or disagree with the point I tried to make though.

There is something good in this:

That the Cross of Christ is so powerful! or else why fear His influence? Makes me reconsider how much i am aware of this reality!

And another to think of is what Christ said: A city on a hill cannot be hidden...

Besides... If this mom goes in the logic of that she doesnt want to influence then there must be a borad in each classroom with all symbols... see i would go to the judge and say well my kids are only exposed to religion-free and i want them to be well educated and know about all...

The sad thing is that in the name of freedom they want to break peace and they want to 're-culture' the world... more like toremodule the identity in an image they think is an ideal... Doing worse then impose a religion... i don't know if i make sense...

Source: www.catholicnewsagency.com [catholicnewsagency.com]

Italy�s Minister of Education, Mariastella Gelmini, has rejected the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in favor of removing crucifixes from public schools. She stated, �Nobody, much less a European court that is steeped in ideology, will be allowed to strip our identity away.�

In Philippians 3 we read: "Unfortunately, many go about in a way which shows them to be enemies of the cross of Christ...such as these will end in disaster! Their god is their belly and their glory is in their shame. I am talking about those who are set upon the things of this world."

May the Lord save everyone from such a fate.

Good for her!!!!! Someone with a backbone!!!!!

Well, in fact if you read the reports, as someone put it, Italian politicians all over (ranging from left to right) are tripping over each other denouncing the ruling.

Alexis

Declaring the European Court Of Human Rights' decision to be null and void on the basis that Italy is a sovereign nation would be a good next step.

Then other questions about EU's authority would naturally come into play.

Doesn't work that way. The EU Treaty effectively surrenders a degree of national sovereignty to the Commission and the European Courts. As I said, the courts do have enforcement powers.

The way I read it, Italy could ignore the Court but then would face strict economic sanctions.

Alexis

Very strict, indeed. The Commission insinuates itself into the minutiae of national life through a matrix of regulations, directives and instructions that, once adopted by the EU, must be enacted into national law (strict penalties imposed for failure to comply). Italy has been burned already several times by the European Court of Criminal Justice for its failure to comply with EU Public Procurement Directives--to the tune of several billions of Euros.

All the more reason to pull out. Someone has got to begin cutting off the tentacles of the EU.

The noose will only tighten with time.

Very difficult to do, especially for those countries that have joined in the single European currency system. The full financial integration of Europe makes it almost impossible for a country to disentangle itself once it is fully committed.

We all know what happened in the US when some states decided to leave the Union. We all know what happened when some Soviet states decided to leave the Union (USSR constitution permitted that - in theory only of course). I think leaving the EU is impossible even when you don't take part in the single currency system.

But the EU law needs consent of both chambers of German parliament to be binding in Germany. So it's clear who's really benefitting from the integration.

That consent is almost automatic. The Treaty requires all new EU directives and regulations to be enacted into national law within 90 days, or sanctions can be imposed. Given that no directive or regulation can be enacted without the unanimous consent of all member states, if a directive passes, then the national governments are already on board. Since all the member states have parliamentary systems, that means the governments already have the votes in their parliaments to enact the necessary laws. Were a new directive or regulation to be rejected by parliament, it would bring about the fall of the government.

Of course, Germany and France remain the driving force behind European integration, but many of the smaller states remain skeptical. I recently visited Poland and wrote a report on their attitude, which I would call ambivalent. On the one hand, Poland has been perhaps the greatest beneficiary of EU funding, but on the other hand, most Poles resent the intrusion of the EU into their daily lives, its attempts to change "Polish ways", and there is no faith in the ability of Brussels to defend Poland against a resurgent Russia.

I do have a question. If a country like Lithuania suffers from high inflation, does the Euro have more of a leveling effect that their own currency would not provide?

In order to join the EuroZone, a country has to comply with the Maastricht Treaty, which set strict limits on both inflation and budget deficits. The former, I believe, has to be below 3%, the latter cannot exceed 3%. Countries that exceed those limits can be sanctioned (though note, when France and Germany did it, the European Bank looked the other way; Lithuania might be another matter).

The advantage of a single integrated currency is it leads to integrated financial markets, and the true costs of goods and services can now be assessed across national boundaries. Capital can thus flow to where it is used most efficiently and yields the highest return on investment.

The disadvantage is the one size fits all prescription. The countries of Europe are very different, much more different than the fifty states are from each other. When a country gets into a recession, the Maastricht Treaty prevents it from going into debt to stimulate its economy. The European Public Procurement Law also prevents it from using government projects to boost employment, because all public works must be competitively bid across the entire EU. So, you might want to build a bridge to help the local construction industry, but the contract ends up going to a German company using French engineers and Ukrainian construction workers.

I think you are all working under a mistaken impression...

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) which gave the judgement is a separate and independent institution from the European Union (EU).

I am not familiar with how the laws of the ECHR are incorporated in other European countries but in the UK, its decisions are not binding. Generally, the government will amend laws to comply with the rulings but is under no obligation to do so - a good current example is the DNA database issue which we have. The ECHR has said that we cannot keep the DNA of innocent people whereas the government is saying that it can but is proposing to do so for only a limited time.

Italy may or may not be bound to follow the ECHR ruling - that is for an Italian lawyer to know. The ECHR can levy fines and penalties (as it has threatened to do so with Bulgaria vis-a-vis the Alternative Synod).

The highest court of the EU is the European Court of Justice (ECJ) which is not an appeal court but merely one which gives its opinions on EU law. Its decisions are binding and member states who fail to follow its rulings can be penalised and sued by the European Commission or any other member state.

Whilst I have certain issues with the EU and the ECJ, this is not something that can be thrown at the latter's door.

Anton

I was aware of the fact that the ECHR goes back to the 1950's, but I couldn't resist the opportunity to criticize the EU.

YES, ironically there are times when the ECHR appears to be on the right side of the law, as in the DNA database issue in the UK you cited (Britain just keeps getting worse in this area) but the continuous precedent of foreign courts making decisions for what should be sovereign states eventually leads to global government.

Perhaps but the EU has nothing to do with this issue though!

The UK, whilst signing up to the European Convention of Human Rights in the 50's did not ratify it or implement it into law until Labour came to power.

The incorporation of the ECHR into UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998 was weak - and on purpose so - as the UK did not want to be in the position it was regarding the ECJ and how its rulings trump UK law.

The Conservatives have proposed withdrawing from the ECHR and creating a separate UK Bill of Rights but whether they go though with this is debatable.

In respect of the interference of a court like the ECJ into sovereign affairs, having become part of the EU it is inevitable that there has to be some uniformity in all states on certain issues i.e. the application of VAT. I accept that there has to be uniformity - it's common sense.

The EU has 27 countries, with different nationalities, histories, culture and political consideration (i.e. Germany is far cosier to Russia in respect of energy supplies and has separate bilateral deals with the latter). They can't agree on a EU President, let alone creating a United States of Europe.

The European Court of Human Rights was formed to adjudicate complaints under the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. All EU members are also members of the European Council, and all members of the Council are required to sign the Convention, which brings them under the jurisdiction of the Court of Human Rights.

Though the EU as a corporate entity has not ratified the Convention, Article 6 of the EU Treaty requires member states to respect human rights under the terms of the Convention. The European Court of Justice considers the Convention on Human Rights to be part of the EU legal system, and relies upon case law from the European Court of Human Rights.

When the Lisbon Treaty goes into effect some time later this year, the European Commission is expected to ratify the Convention on Human Rights, which would make the European Court of Justice obligated under law to respect the legal precedents set by the Court of Human Rights.

In short, at the present time, a complainant could take a ruling from the Court of Human Rights to the Court of Justice if a member state refuses to abide by a Court of Human Rights ruling. In the future, all member states will be bound by the rulings of the Court of Human Rights.

That is not necessary correct or as dangerous as you are making it out to be.

Whilst the provisions foresee that the EU shall join the ECHR,it is only after:

- the EU and the member states have agreed on how the EU's legal and practical relations with the different control bodies of the convention will be; and

- after it is clear how one will differentiate between law suits against the EU and those that would go against a member state (which could become difficult when it comes to the execution of EU law in the member states).

In the end, the Council needs to decide unanimously on the accession to the ECHR, and all member states will have to agree individually according to their constitutional provisions.

Whilst this is clearly prescribed by the Lisbon Treaty, this is still going to be a very difficult legal and political process, not least seeing the debates around the Charta on Fundamental Rights and Freedoms in some member states or the latest "outrage" in Italy against the Crucifix judgement by the ECtHR.

I do accept that the Council of Europe - the organisation built around the ECHR - is starting to put pressure on the EU to start the accession process, this could take some time - or indeed be not politically possible - until the EU has ruled out all complex legal and practical problems related to this accession

Greek Orthodox Church reacts:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8358027.stm

There is a thread on this article on Church News.

LINK HERE