Religious Freedom and Educational Freedom: Parental Rights at Stake Before the ECHR

A Catholic Spanish father brought his case to the European Court of Human Rights after the Spanish Constitutional Court ruled that his daughter should no longer attend Catholic school, but instead receive a secular education.

By Catalina Henríquez Cajales

Education and Religious Beliefs

Mr. D.H.R. and Ms. N.C.R. were a practicing Catholic couple, who decided to baptize and raise their daughter in the Catholic faith. Following their divorce, Mr. D.H.R. and Ms. N.C.R. became embroiled in a dispute over the selection of a school for their child. The father, who remained Catholic, sought a Catholic education for his daughter, whereas the mother, who professed the same faith until the breakdown of their marriage, thought a secular one was now more appropriate.

To remedy the parental disagreement, Mr. D.H.R. sought judicial intervention and proposed that the child be enrolled in a nearby Catholic school. He relied on the school’s educational tradition, facilities, and proximity, as well as the importance of ensuring the child’s right to religious education. Both the Court of First Instance and the Provincial Court of Barcelona ruled in his favor, on the condition that the child would not attend religious classes but instead take part in an alternative activity, in order to respect the mother’s worldview. Ms. N.C.R. opposed to this solution, arguing that her child would still be exposed to a religious environment. She therefore brought the case before the Spanish Constitutional Court.

In February 2024, the Court ruled that the fundamental rights at stake had not been adequately considered. It found that “In a context of deep and irreconcilable disagreement between the parents regarding their religious beliefs, which gives rise to a dispute over the type of education to be provided to the child, what best serves her [the child] interests is that the decision taken ensures her schooling takes place in a neutral environment, so that she may freely form her own convictions” (SCC 26/2024).

While the lower courts may have rendered questionable decisions, they clearly tried to reconcile the parents' conflicting views. Here the Constitutional Court clearly sided with the mother and chose the interpretation of freedom of religion as freedom from religion. Following this decision, the father took the case to the ECHR.

Evidently the Court’s ruling isn’t a balanced decision but a very secularist one. In recent years, Europe has faced increasing restrictions on religious freedom^[1], and Spain is no exception. Despite its Catholic cultural heritage, the current political and judicial climate is becoming increasingly hostile towards Christians. Recent developments illustrate this trend: individuals have been targeted and prosecuted for expressing their religious beliefs^[2]; legislative initiatives have sought to criminalize the peaceful expression of these beliefs, under “buffer zone” laws^[3]; religious symbols have been removed under the Law of Democratic Memory^[4]; and a recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Madrid ordered to create a (black) list of conscientious objectors in the context of abortion^[5].

Taken together, these political and judicial developments suggest that the present case is not an isolated incident of discrimination against Christian within the judicial system, but rather part of a broader pattern of anti-Christian policies in Spain. The "Hosts' Case" back in 2024 and the Constitutional Court rule that forced a male religious brotherhood to accept women in Tenerife are other examples of hostility towards Catholics in the Spanish judicial system.

When it comes to education and religious beliefs, the right to change one’s religion cannot be understood as an unlimited freedom that overrides the rights of others. While the mother is free to adopt and pass a secular worldview to her daughter, this choice cannot restrict the father’s right to raise his child according to his own convictions, nor with the child’s own interest in receiving such education. The ideological shift of one parent cannot justify removing the religious dimension from the child’s upbringing.

Catholic Teaching on Parental Rights

The Spanish Constitutional Court held that the child’s best interest could justify limitations to the legitimate interests of third parties, such as the parents’ religious beliefs (SCC 26/2024). However, this only undermined Mr. D.H.R.’s right to ensure his daughter’s education in conformity with his religious and philosophical convictions, and welcomed with open arms all the requests of the mother.

By marrying in the Catholic Church, Mr. D.H.C.R. and Ms. N.C.R. agreed to raise their children in the Catholic faith. This commitment gave Mr. D.H.R. a legitimate expectation that his child would be educated accordingly. While the mother is free to change her religious convictions, this shared commitment cannot be disregarded and it should be given due weight by the courts when assessing the child’s best interests, particularly as it formed part of the obligations that both parents freely undertook at the time of their marriage.

The Catholic Church has a long-standing tradition of safeguarding parental rights. Canon 226 §2 of the Code of Canon Law states that since “they [the parents] have given life to their children, parents have a most grave obligation and possess the right to educate them.” Therefore, it is their natural right to be responsible for their children’s upbringing and have both a serious duty and the right to educate them. By seeking a Catholic education for his daughter, Mr. D.H.R. is not only exercising a fundamental right, but also fulfilling his obligations as a member of the faithful to transmit the faith by word and example to his offspring (Can. 774 §2).

Thus, parents have the right and duty to provide their children with the best Catholic education, and have a considerable margin of appreciation to choose the means and institutions to do so (Can. 793 §1). Meanwhile, the State has the obligation to respect the rights of parents and abstain from interfering.

Secular Education Is Not a Zero-Sum Game

Ms. N.C.R. has insisted on a secular education for her daughter, invoking her religious freedom, including the right not to adhere to any religion. Although it is a legitimate choice for her, it is worth noting that secularism is not neutral and that secular education was established as opposed to Catholic education, separated from any religious consideration.

Originally, the term secular referred to clergy who lived “in the world, in the current century” as opposed to those who lived in a monastery, following a rule, the regulars. Today, however, reflects an attempt to exclude the clergy and the Church from the public sphere; in this sense, secularism operates as a moral choice that promotes the removal of religion from public life. This is a loss for education, culture and society, because it gets rid of our cultural and religious background. The Constitutional Court fails to acknowledge that getting a catholic education is getting something, whereas getting a secular education is getting nothing, because you withdraw a teaching from the child.

The mother’s secular worldview cannot be used to exclude the father’s right to raise his daughter according to his own convictions, nor the child’s own interest in receiving a religious education. In fact, secular education is not a zero-sum game. The ECHR has recognized that there is often confusion between “neutrality”, an inclusive concept, in which different philosophies coexist, without any being imposed, and “secularism,” an exclusive concept that requires the removal of any public expression or symbol of religious denomination (Lautsi and Others v. Italy, no. 30814/06, ECHR). Christianity has played a decisive role in shaping Europe’s ideological foundations and collective ethical conscience. Reducing education to a purely secular framework risks overlooking the decisive contribution of Christianity to Europe’s intellectual and moral heritage.

The Court’s reasoning appears inconsistent when compared with its approach to other areas of education, such as sex education. In that context, courts have repeatedly held that the purpose of school instruction is to inform, not to influence (even when parents object) on the basis that greater knowledge benefits the child and that it does not prevent them from forming their own convictions later in life, while parents remain free to guide their children’s views outside the classroom. Therefore, it is unclear why a similar approach was not adopted in the present case: if exposure to certain ideas in the context of sex education does not determine a child’s future beliefs, the same reasoning should apply to religious education.

Rather than accepting that exposure to a religious environment does not predetermine a child’s beliefs, or recognizing that the mother could convey her own worldview outside of school, the Spanish Constitutional Court treats such exposure as incompatible with the child’s freedom of belief, thereby excluding it altogether from the educational setting. This wrong understanding of neutrality risks leading to the systematic exclusion of religion from education.

Far from promoting pluralism, it removes an essential part of Europe’s cultural and intellectual heritage. This ultimately leaves children with a poorer education, as excluding religious education subtracts from their understanding of the world rather than adding to it, making secular education, in effect, a “-1 game”.

There is currently a pending friendly settlement between Mr D.H.R. and Ms N.C.R at the ECHR. Will the understanding respect Mr D.H.R.'s right to educate his daughter according to his religious convictions? Time will tell.

_________

^[1] Christianophobia & anti-Christian hatred in Europe

^[2] OIDAC Europe

^[3] Iglesia Noticias

^[4] Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians in Europe Report 2025 pg. 37

^[5] FSSPX.News