Massimo Introvigne
(ZENIT News – Bitter Winter / Rome, 06.14.2025).- On June 3, Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, President of the Italian Catholic Bishops’ Conference, criticized a modification to Article 47 of Law 22/85, which governs Italy’s financial support for religions. Zuppi stated his “disappointment at the government’s unilateral decision to alter the purposes and allocation methods of the eight per thousand tax revenue. This change undermines the original agreement between the Church and the government and effectively distorts its intended logic and functioning, resulting in inequalities that harm both the Catholic Church and other religious bodies with agreements with the state.”
The conservative government stated that Article 47 was altered by the former left-wing administration under Giuseppe Conte, asserting that the recent modification is minor.
What exactly happened? The Italian “otto per mille” (eight per thousand) system is rather peculiar and often misinterpreted by foreigners. To grasp its significance, we should revisit history back to 1870. Italy unified in 1861 following military invasions led by one of the small states of the peninsula (“staterelli”), the Kingdom of Sardinia, centered in Turin. Employing its “artichoke policy” (one leaf at a time), it subdued all other small states as well as regions from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. However, one area remained unincorporated—the Papal States, which resisted due to a pact between the Vatican and France, resulting in French forces protecting the Pope’s territories.
In 1870, Prussia attacked France, requiring all its troops at home. Consequently, the French soldiers withdrew from the Papal States, allowing Italy to invade and conquer the region. In response, the Pope excommunicated the King of Italy along with any Italians who chose to run for office or participate in elections. Given that the majority of Italians were devout Catholics, this led to a peculiar form of democracy where fewer than 20% of citizens took part in the voting process.
Mussolini abolished elections and sought to address the “Catholic question.” While he couldn’t restore the Pope’s territories, he could provide financial compensation. Through the Concordat of 1929, the Vatican acknowledged Italy’s sovereignty over the former Papal States and revoked the excommunications. Italy agreed to pay all Catholic parish priests a monthly salary and exempted all priests from military service.
Following the collapse of fascism, democratic Italy incorporated the 1929 Concordat into its Constitution. The Constitution specified that only the arrangement with the Catholic Church could be referred to as a “concordat,” while similar agreements with other religions would be designated as “intese” (agreements).
Developing a new religious system in Italy took decades. During this time, the Concordat of 1929 continued to be in effect, and parish priests received stipends from the state. In 1984, the Vatican and Bettino Craxi’s Socialist-led government agreed upon a new Concordat. Simultaneously, the first “intesa” was established with Italy’s oldest Protestant minority, the Waldensians.
Cardinal Attilio Nicora, who headed the Vatican delegation, accomplished his two primary objectives. Firstly, he aimed to ensure that the Concordat remained a treaty governed by international rather than Italian law. Consequently, similar to the 1929 Concordat, it was established between Italy and the Vatican, a sovereign state, with the Italian Catholic Church not being a signatory. Secondly, Italy and the Vatican agreed to abolish the stipend system for parish priests, substituting it with a religious tax. However, Cardinal Nicora sought to prevent a replication of the German model, where the religious tax is optional, allowing non-religious taxpayers to avoid the payment. This has led many German believers to declare themselves non-religious to evade the religious tax payment.
In Italy, the situation differs. The 1929 Concordat established that 0.8 percent of all Italian taxes (the “otto per mille”) is allocated to support religion. This amount is not a new tax, and taxpayers have no option to exclude it. Instead, they can choose where their 0.8 percent will go: to the Catholic Church, to one of the recognized religions with an “intesa,” or to the state for cultural and humanitarian initiatives.
Cardinal Nicora’s most brilliant move was the clause regarding taxpayers who neglect to specify where they want their 0.8 percent to go. Tax returns in Italy are complex and extensive documents, with most taxpayers requiring professional help to complete them. Nicora recognized that many would either forget or be unwilling to indicate the destination of their 0.8 percent.
Instead of allocating to the state the money of the taxpayers who did not make an explicit choice, Nicora devised a system to distribute funds based on the preferences of those who did express their choice regarding where their 0.8 percent should go. For example, if only 20% of taxpayers indicate a preference in a certain year, with 10% (i.e., 50% of those who expressed a choice) selecting the Catholic Church, 5% (i.e., 25% of that group) choosing the Waldensians, and another 5% opting for the state, then the 0.8 percent of taxes from those who did not express a destination would be allocated as follows: 50% to the Catholic Church, 25% to the Waldensians, and 25% to the state.
Nicora understood that this was where the real money was. For example, in 2020, 41% of taxpayers expressed a preference for allocating their 0.8 percent, while 59% did not. Among those who indicated a choice, 70.4% selected the Catholic Church. However, the Catholic Church did not just receive 0.8% of the taxes from those who chose it explicitly; it also obtained 70.4% of the amount derived from the 0.8% of taxes paid by the 59% of Italian citizens who either forgot or chose not to express a preference.
The system is complicated by the stipulation of “intese” by other religions, including several Protestant and Orthodox denominations, Jews, the Italian Hindu Union, the Italian Buddhist Union, and Soka Gakkai (which has a distinct “intesa” from other Buddhists). For ethical reasons, some groups choose not to accept the “otto per mille,” while others are willing to receive only the 0.8 percent derived from specific choices.
Interestingly, two of the largest religious minorities are excluded from this system. Two Prime Ministers have signed “intese” with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, but these require ratification by Parliament, which has never addressed the issue. Consequently, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have taken their case to the European Court of Human Rights. Regarding Islam, I was a member of two commissions formed under different political administrations to negotiate a potential “intesa.” The failure of these negotiations stemmed not from Italy’s lack of goodwill, but rather from the challenge of the numerous Islamic associations in establishing a unified organization that could sign an “intesa” and receive the 0.8 percent.
The system has made participating religions relatively affluent. The Catholic Church now receives more funds than it did under the pre-1984 stipend system for parish priests. However, this wealth depends on the fact that religions also obtain a portion of taxes from individuals who did not express a choice, based on the proportion of those who did choose them. If the Catholic Church were to receive 70.4% of the 0.8% from the taxes of those who explicitly selected it, it would obtain its 0.8% from a modest 28.7% of all taxes collected in Italy. In contrast, under the current system, it receives 70.4% of the 0.8% from all taxes paid in Italy. The disparity between 28.7% and 70.4% represents several hundred million euros.
The ongoing controversy features both explicit and subtle aspects. Annually, as this season arrives, Italian streets are filled with advertisements from religions appealing to taxpayers to designate them as recipients of the 0.8% of their tax returns. Slogans like “I give my 8% to the Jews because I am not a Jew,” and “If you are kind and compassionate, you are a Buddhist without knowing it: give your 0.8% to the Italian Buddhist Union,” are common. The Catholic Church also employs top advertising agencies for this campaign.
Taxpayers can choose the state on tax forms, but the state does not promote this option through significant advertising. In 2020, only 9.78% of taxpayers made such selections, compared to the Catholic Church’s 70.4%. Rather than using advertisements, the left-wing Conte government let taxpayers who would designate the state specify five designated areas on their tax returns for directing the 0.8% revenue. These areas cover addressing global hunger, aiding in natural disaster response, assisting refugees, preserving cultural heritage, and refurbishing school infrastructure.
The initial results show that this initiative has been moderately effective. The state’s share of choices has risen, while the Catholic Church’s has declined. However, whether this change is due to the new law is uncertain. Contributing factors include a shrinking percentage of active Catholics and campaigns by conservative groups urging a withdrawal of support for the Church as a protest against its pro-immigration stance. Overall, the state’s percentage of choices remains significantly lower than that of those favoring the Catholic Church.
The new government has increased the options for state selection from five to seven, adding two new categories: “assistance to unaccompanied foreign minors” and “extraordinary measures for recovery from drug addiction and other pathological addictions aimed at treatment, rehabilitation, and reintegration of individuals with such addictions.” Addressing drug addiction is a key focus for the current government. However, the Catholic Bishops express concern that incorporating the widely supported initiatives to combat drug addiction could raise the numbers of those who would select the state, potentially disadvantaging the Catholic Church. In response, the government clarified that, should this occur, the Catholic Church currently manages a significant portion of drug recovery programs in Italy, which would indirectly result in it receiving additional funds.
The government has announced plans to launch a publicity campaign encouraging giving the 0.8% to the state. However, its budget is limited compared to the substantial funds mobilized for advertising campaigns by the Catholic Church and several religious minorities.
The controversy also stems from the Catholic Church’s concerns over proposals suggesting that religions will only receive 0.8% of taxes from taxpayers who would explicitly indicate them. As mentioned earlier, this would have disastrous consequences for both the Catholic Church and religious minorities.
To prevent this, the Catholic Church reminds the government that the Concordat of 1984 cannot be modified unilaterally and is an international treaty. It is unlikely that the conservative Meloni government will reduce the 0.8% allocated to religions to a portion of the taxes of those who indicate a choice only. However, the Catholic Church has decided to warn the state by now that this would violate international law.
Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.
