The Supreme Court rejects the appeal of Catholic parents against the Government’s primary curriculum

by archynewsycom
0 comment

He supreme court has dismissed this Wednesday the appeal filed by the Catholic Confederation of Parents and Parents of Students (CONCAPA), against Royal Decree 157/2022, of March 1, which establishes the ordination and minimum teachings of Education Primary. The appeal requested the annulment of the additional provision dedicated to religious teachings and the suppression of certain references and mentions to the terms “gender” and “gender perspective”.

The Contentious-Administrative Chamber highlights that the royal decree does not violate the fundamental rights of religious freedom, equality and education, since it “guarantees the offer of the teaching of the Catholic religion”, “and there is no discrimination between those students who have decided to follow, in relation to those who chose not to follow the teaching of the Catholic religion”.

For the High Court, the applicant’s doubts about the learning of curricular contents for those who do not opt ​​for religious education, are expressly resolved by the provision itself when it states that “the activities referred to in this section will in no case involve learning curricular content associated with knowledge of religion or any area of ​​the stage”.

For this reason, it understands that CONCAPA’s argument “seems to be based not on the regulation contained in the royal decree that is appealing, which expressly prohibits what the plaintiff fears, but on its subsequent practical application. Ultimately, it supports the violations that it denounces on future actions, and therefore hypothetical.When the truth is that any uncertainty that arises in the interpretation and practical application of the concepts provided for in section 3, first paragraph, must be resolved taking into account the provision of the aforementioned second paragraph, which appears clearly and emphatically formulated. Without now being able to resolve eventual future breaches in advance, nor venture that the transversality can serve as an excuse to support interpretations contrary to the one exposed”.

Regarding the references to “gender”, the references to “gender equality” or the “gender perspective” are questioned, which violate, in the plaintiff’s opinion, the neutrality that should prevail in the educational field. For the Supreme Court, however, this terminology “is the one followed by the rules of the European Union in all areas: “Legal certainty, equality, ideological freedom or the right to education are not cracked by references to the gender equality in the challenged Royal Decree, following international guidelines since the 1990s, the standards of the European Union, and the Organic Law on Education itself, which provides coverage for the challenged standards”, says the court in a ruling on the presentation of the magistrate stiff pillar.

Related Posts

Leave a Comment