A wedding with divorce on the horizon

Prior to the new Family Law Act of 1975, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the separation of property regime applied to marriages. From 20 September 1975, the new legislation established that the community of property regime would apply to all marriages, again in the absence of any agreement to the contrary. This represents a radical shift: from separate property to community of property. It is as though the legislator had realised well in advance, for once, that the community of property regime in marriage would come off worst, and had intended to give it a helping hand to prevent it from succumbing. The legislation in this regard has not produced any results, but if nothing else it has made it clear that, for the legislator, the norm in marriage is not the separation of property but the community of property. This was a radical shift in that it reflected the equality between men and women that the new family law of 1975 set out in black and white. Let us explain. The dominant partner in the couple was the man; in a married couple, it was the husband. Far more so than today, half a century ago men occupied positions of power, in both private and public life; far more so than today, half a century ago there was a significant disparity between men’s (high) and women’s (low) employment rates and average wages; men led the way, whilst women trailed behind. The old family law, with its separation of property, merely reflected male dominance, since men held the upper hand over women both in terms of power and assets. The provision in the new family law that, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, marriages are governed by community of property rather than separation of property thus reflected a change of course: no longer a journey characterised by the greater power of the man, but one characterised by the couple, on an equal footing, as a community. Community of property, precisely, rather than separation, which favours the spouse who is economically and materially stronger.

The preference accorded by the new family law to the community of property, in the name of genuine equality between spouses in marriage, has been overturned by the outcry raised by the Italian masses – men and women alike united in the struggle: ‘Separation! Separation!’ Everyone wants separate property when they tie the knot, whether it takes place before a priest or a registrar. We’re exaggerating when we say ‘everyone’. Not quite everyone: just three-quarters. Because to date, 75 per cent of the few Italians who still get married opt for separate property, leaving the preference for community of property to the remaining 25 per cent. The marriage hasn’t even begun, and yet a separation is already being factored in. Granted, only as far as assets are concerned. But the choice bodes well, so to speak, and the rest – the people – will inevitably follow. After all, it is precisely in anticipation of this – now anything but paradoxical – outcome of marriage, namely divorce, that the choice of separate property appears not iconoclastic or contradictory, but eminently prudent; better still: practical. Let us separate our assets even as we enter into marriage, so that when divorce comes – and sooner or later, barring miracles that are increasingly unlikely, it will come – the path will be smoothed, the procedural and legal process less arduous, and the atmosphere between spouses parting ways will not be one of civil war over establishing what belongs to whom.

The legislator had equality between spouses in mind; spouses, on the other hand, have the division of assets in mind. The legislator intended the new Family Law of 1975 to reflect the spirit of marriage, whilst spouses, even as they enter into marriage, are already operating in the spirit of divorce. And so, indeed, here is the result that leaves no room for appeal: separation 3, communion 1. It’s no contest.

But it wasn’t always like this. Even in the early 2000s, the contest—to continue with competitive rather than sporting jargon—was more or less a draw, fifty-fifty: a marriage with legal separation, one with joint ownership of property. Except that legal separation subsequently gained the upper hand, so that the future lies entirely in its favour, whilst the fate of joint ownership of property appears increasingly to be one of marginalisation.

Anyone who, having reached this point in the discussion, might assume that it is the usual northerners—perceived as arrogant and wealthy, and most attached to their wealth—who are tipping the balance in favour of separate property, would not merely be disappointed but utterly baffled by the figures released successively by Istat. Joint ownership of assets is at its lowest in the south, at a meagre 18.7 per cent, and at its highest in the north-east, at a much more substantial 31.2 per cent. This gap widens further between the regions: the highest figure in Trentino-Alto Adige – 33.6 per cent – is more than double the lowest in Calabria – a meagre 15.9 per cent. Thus, whilst community of property in the north is close to 30 per cent, in the South it remains below 20 per cent. In the South, four out of five couples choose to keep their assets separate upon marriage; only one opts for joint ownership. Yet it was commonly assumed that Southerners—precisely because they have lower incomes, and by no small margin, compared to those in the North—would be more likely to share in order to be better off. To have better opportunities. Such traditional assumptions no longer hold. Note that we are about to enter the most challenging part of this argument, as it is counterintuitive. The fact is that the community of property is greatest where civil marriage is most common, whilst it is least common where religious marriage is most common. Doesn’t that seem incredible? And yet it is the plain truth. Counterintuitive, but true. One would expect the opposite: joint ownership prevailing in religious marriages and separation of property predominating in civil ones. Yet the data tell a different story. In the North, where church weddings are now rare, joint ownership remains robust; in the South, where the majority still marry in church, joint ownership is in steep decline. In Calabria, where 69 out of every 100 marriages are still religious, joint ownership of property stands at 15.9 per cent; in Trentino, where just 24 out of every 100 marriages are religious, joint ownership of property stands at 33.6 per cent – more than double. Attempting to explain this to children in catechism classes would be challenging, but the phenomenon merits wider attention.

From ‘till death do us part’ to the most pragmatic and immediate of separations: that of assets. An anthropological decline. It is worth asking whether the Vatican has a clear picture of the situation. One might also wonder if Church authorities will eventually question the purpose of the marriage preparation courses offered in practically every parish, given that the outcome appears to be dwindling numbers of church weddings and an ever-increasing trend toward the separation of assets. It is almost a notarial deed certifying the now-agonising inability of the Church, and of Catholic doctrine, to guide the faithful’s choices towards adherence to the Gospel’s most basic tenets: communion, not separation. Never mind political choices and voting in polling booths where only God is watching; here we are dealing with the very basics of Christian sentiment.

I’ll put it bluntly, and I hope I’ll be forgiven for doing so: the Church should not accept marriages with separate property; it should only celebrate marriages with community of property – a minor matter of consistency, even before one considers the principles of doctrine and (Catholic) faith. Should anyone argue that this would mean the demise of religious marriage, it is worth remembering that religious marriage has already gone about destroying itself amidst fashion shows and displays of wealth – even by those who do not have a single euro and go into debt certainly not to appear more beautiful before God. Without a return to a modicum of spirituality—which has evaporated amid the spectacle of overwhelming events from dawn to dusk, of which the interlude before the priest is, in fact, just that: an interlude—religious marriage is as good as dead. In 2026, around 55,000 religious weddings will be celebrated in Italy: a mere drop in the ocean in a country of 59 million inhabitants with a reputation for being Catholic and where the population continues – though who knows for how much longer – to declare itself predominantly Catholic. This represents a mere fraction of the population, especially when one considers that during the 1960s—an era of social protest—some 400,000 religious weddings were celebrated each year. The argument, therefore, is that a modicum of consistency, particularly in the context of marriage, would not be out of place, and the Church might well benefit from it. Do you want separate property? That’s your right, of course, but when it comes to marriage, please go to the town hall.

That said, such a reflection must be carried out properly, and indeed the Church itself cannot fail to make it. But really, there is no question that the separation of property facilitates the procedures and path towards divorce, but is this really the consideration from which one must start when taking the plunge into marriage? If this is indeed the case, it may be preferable not to take any risks at all and, as in the Game of the Goose, to remain stationary for a turn on the square already occupied. Consequently, everything conspires to impose, urbi et orbi, the question of all questions: if one is not even capable of managing joint ownership of property, what can ever become of the necessary communion between spouses required to conceive, raise and educate their children?

In truth, some witty soul might quite rightly point out in this regard that Italians have already answered this question – and are continuing to do so – not with an indistinct and enigmatic ‘I don’t know’, as we have just written, but by having fewer and fewer children within marriage (and, one might even add, with a touch of malice, by bringing them up even worse): a response that could not be clearer or more cutting. Once the cradle of children until a few decades ago, marriage is now losing even this quality: that of being, of all settings, the one best suited – in the sense that it provides the most support and ensures the greatest protection – for children.

There is a curious phenomenon which is not unique to Italy, of course, but which is reaching new heights here: couples are having fewer and fewer children within marriage – this is plain for all to see – yet, conversely, they are bringing more and more children into their marriages. Children do not tend to leave the marriage, but rather to enter it. Does a couple begin their life together with a sort of ‘trial period’, shall we call it, in the name of freedom? Then along comes a child, and with the child comes the question: now that we have a child, wouldn’t it be better if we got married? A question that all too often translates into: well, yes, why not get married? And so, finally, comes marriage. With a child in tow. More and more unmarried couples are entering marriage already with a child, driven by the desire to give their child full recognition, formalising their status as a couple through marriage in the eyes of society – not to mention in accordance with the law – even if, in terms of rights and recognition, as is only right, there is no difference between the child of a married couple and that of a cohabiting couple. Such couples, who marry after having had a child whilst they were still in a de facto relationship – or perhaps not even that, merely a casual partnership – and who marry because of that child, are on average older than other unmarried couples who marry, and have decidedly more modest, if not non-existent, prospects or expectations of having further children: on the whole, they bring more children into the marriage than the marriage produces. From a demographic point of view, this is a very bad situation.

However, the issue of poor business practices is far more widespread in this regard. In this respect, the impact on married life of the separation of property – intended to facilitate an increasingly likely divorce – has been devastating: a conditioning factor that leaves one defenceless from the outset. If one embarks on the journey of marriage with the separation of property already in mind as a means of facilitating a future divorce, it can be argued that the union has already been half-lost or, at the very least, that there is limited confidence in its success. It may seem like a small thing, but whatever all the self-appointed experts who crowd this debate may say – telling us things like there are too few children because there are too few nurseries, or that we should separate assets so that when the inevitable divorce comes, we’ll avoid squabbles and – more or less metaphorical – stabbings – it is a terrible idea because children in marriage, in the world of the ever-dwindling number of marriages celebrated year after year in Italy, are, under this star, destined to become as scarce as prime numbers are in the universe of whole numbers. Right down to the loneliness of only children, which is every bit as bleak as that of prime numbers.