Today the idea of neighborhood seems to have lost the conceptual, physical and administrative value useful to understand a specific social consistency and also to describe a traditional homogeneous spatial order. However, it seems to be left a certain desire of identification between the local community and the territory, at least in connection to recognition processes coming from the reiteration of collective actions in the same place. As other scholars have already suggested, "the centrality of the practical dimension" promotes the rise of sociality aggregations able to define new spatial lumps. But what spaces have really (had) the ability to suggest new configurations? How many and which ones of these are / have been really able to affect the urban settings of the neighborhood and of the city? The twentieth century has certainly been one of the central moments in which the idea of neighborhood has evolved and many of the places that, at that time, characterized those urban systems have maintained, at least in the common sense, a certain relevance for their identification. The history of some of these places reveals not only their relevance in the processes of collective recognition but also a real ability to affect local and sometimes even urban city structures. The presented story fits into this context and intertwines public policies and the collective life of some of its inhabitants with the changes that the Catholic Church was facing in those years.
Keywords: Neighborhood, Church, local community, practices.