After the attacks from CGIL, the broadsides of Il Fatto Quotidiano, and most recently the intervention of the National Union of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs representing diplomats, the target remains the same: the ecclesiastical advisor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Don Marco Malizia. And, consequently, the Minister Antonio Tajani, who appointed him to that role.
The issue, however, does not concern just one person. What is at stake is a fundamental constitutional principle: freedom of religion.
Secularism Is Not Hostility Toward Religion
Italian constitutional jurisprudence is clear: the secular nature of the State does not mean the expulsion of religion from the public sphere. Rather, it means pluralism, impartiality, and equal distance from all beliefs. This does not imply neutralizing every expression of faith, but ensuring that everyone has the freedom to express it, without imposition or discrimination.
In the absence of coercion or pressure, there can be no violation of the principle of secularism. There is no evidence that the spiritual initiatives promoted by Don Malizia have ever been imposed on anyone. Participation is voluntary: no discrimination, no undue hierarchical influence. Where, then, would the alleged violation lie?
Article 19 of the Italian Constitution protects the right to freely profess one’s faith “in any form, individually or in association with others.” It does not provide an exception for public employees. It does not state that entering an office strips an individual of their spiritual dimension. A worker does not cease to be a person when they clock in.
If that were the case, secularism would become a new form of intolerance.
Fragile and Pretextual Criticism
The criticisms raised—regarding the use of meeting rooms, working hours, and alleged costs—appear technically weak and largely pretextual. In every public administration there is flexibility for short absences, cultural gatherings, commemorations, and initiatives not strictly operational. Why should a voluntary moment of prayer be treated differently from a book presentation or a conference?
As for the alleged costs, no concrete figures have been provided. Without numbers, the accusation remains abstract and instrumental. It should also be remembered that Don Malizia carries out his ministry free of charge, without burdening public finances for his pastoral service.
Even the criticism regarding the pilgrimage appears forced. It is a private initiative, organized privately. Turning it into an administrative case means distorting reality in order to construct an ad hoc scandal.
An Ideological Reflex
What is striking in this affair is the ideological tone. When the Catholic faith appears in the public sphere, a conditioned reflex seems to trigger: suspicion, irony, delegitimization. Religion is tolerated only as long as it remains confined to the private sphere—silent and invisible.
But this is not the secularism envisioned by the Italian Constitution. It is a caricature of it.
The Italian State has a history, a culture, and a social fabric deeply intertwined with Catholicism. This does not imply discrimination against other faiths, but it makes even more paradoxical the idea that the presence of a priest within a ministry could in itself constitute a threat.
Freedom of religion must be protected precisely when it is uncomfortable, when it causes irritation, when someone would prefer to silence it.
A Debate Within the Ministry
In defense of Don Malizia, two other unions within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs—Confedir and CEUQ—have intervened in the internal debate, recalling institutional and regulatory aspects that make the accusations appear even weaker.
This controversy risks turning into a boomerang, because selective moralism is a double-edged sword.
And while ideological dust storms are being raised, the modern-day Torquemadas seem far less outraged by far more substantial inefficiencies—too focused instead on a rosary recited during a break.
Freedom Cannot Be Conditional
This is not about privileging one confession. It is about not discriminating against those who believe, about not turning faith into a fault, and about not using administrative arguments as a screen for ideological prejudice.
Targeting Don Malizia because he is a priest sends a very clear message: religion is tolerated only if it is irrelevant. But a freedom that must hide is no longer freedom.
If the Republic truly wishes to be secular, it must also be inclusive. It must guarantee to everyone—believers and non-believers alike—equal dignity in the public sphere. It must defend freedom of religion not as a benevolent concession, but as an inviolable right.
Because when the religious freedom of one person is attacked, the freedom of all is weakened.
