The Episcopal Commission for Education and Culture published an official note in which it categorically rejects that the Spanish Episcopal Conference (CEE) had reached any kind of agreement with the Ministry of Education to allow that in Bachillerato there is no alternative subject—the so-called “mirror subject”—to Catholic Religion. The statement responds directly to what was stated in the Supreme Court Ruling (R. CASACIÓN/6342/2023), which mentions an alleged “negotiated understanding” between the Administration and the CEE during the processing of the curricula of the Organic Law for the Modification of the Organic Law of Education (LOMLOE).
The CEE Denounces a “Completely False” Statement
According to the episcopal statement, it is “completely false any assertion that implies that the Spanish Episcopal Conference had reached an agreement with the Ministry of Education so that, in the LOMLOE, there would be no alternative subject to Catholic Religion in Bachillerato.” The Commission emphasizes that no specific negotiation with the Government ever took place to define the academic treatment of Religion in this stage.
The CEE points out that the only applicable regulatory reference is that contained in the Agreements between the Spanish State and the Holy See of 1979, which recognizes a different framework for Bachillerato since it is not a compulsory stage. According to the Episcopal Commission, it is possible that the lawyer from the Principality of Asturias referred to this point indirectly, but insists that the ruling drafted by the Supreme Court does not reflect it that way, generating confusion in the media and public opinion.
The Church Warns of the Risk of a Falsehood Established in a Legal Document
The Episcopal Commission states that the version disseminated by the lawyer from the Principality is “contrary to the facts” and that, to sustain it legally, it should be accredited with real documentation. It expresses its concern that this falsehood be fixed in a Supreme Court ruling “as truth,” and announces that it will explore the necessary legal avenues to prevent the assertion from being validated in a document of this relevance.
The CEE recalls that, during the processing of the LOMLOE, it always defended the strict compliance with the 1979 Agreements, which require that the teaching of Religion be provided “in conditions comparable to other fundamental disciplines,” both in teaching load and curricular dignity. In this sense, it again qualifies as “inappropriate” the solution applied to the Religion subject in Bachillerato by the Ministry and by some autonomous communities.
The Origin of the Conflict: The Case of the Asturian Decree and the Supreme Court’s Turnaround
The controversy arises from the appeal filed by the Archdiocese of Oviedo against Decree 60/2022 of the Principality of Asturias, which regulates the Bachillerato curriculum. This decree includes Religion in 1st year of Bachillerato, but without establishing an alternative subject for those who do not choose it, breaking the equivalence existing in Primary and ESO.
The litigation reached the Superior Court of Justice of Asturias, which initially ruled in favor of the Archdiocese and partially annulled the decree, considering that the absence of an alternative discriminated against the Religion subject and violated the Church-State Agreements.
However, the Supreme Court revoked that ruling. In its decision, the Supreme Court holds that in Bachillerato—being a non-compulsory stage—the legislator is not obliged to establish a mirror subject and that the difference in teaching load does not constitute discrimination. In this context, the lawyer from the Principality argued that this situation was “the fruit of a negotiated understanding with the CEE,” an assertion incorporated into the text of the ruling and which has provoked the energetic reaction from the episcopate.
It is precisely this phrase, contained in the Supreme Court ruling, that has motivated the CEE’s statement, which considers it impossible to leave unanswered an assertion “without factual support” and contrary to the position that the Church has consistently maintained.