Teaching Catholic Religion in Croatian Public Schools: Legal Frame and Challenges

Abstract

This paper explores the Croatian framework of collaboration between the state and the Catholic Church in the educational field, specifically the teaching of Catholic religion in public schools. First, the statute of the subject of religion was analyzed, following what is established in the Agreement with the Holy See and its Development Agreement with the Croatian Conference of Bishops. Some challenges to this peculiar model of cooperation were revised, mainly the ones regarding the enrollment and the co-responsibility of both ecclesiastical and state authorities in the approval and control of programs and contents. Second, the status of religion teachers was also evaluated. The same ecclesiastical and state authorities also have competence over the teaching staff, from their training to the control of their work, and must confront inconvenient situations related to the suitability of these professionals. In the study of each section and its corresponding rules and practices, it was possible to outline singular aspects, in some cases recognized—or rejected—judicially as discriminatory. This approximation to the right to religious education intends to examine the practice observed by the respective authorities in applying such provisions. The obtained findings and proposals about the singular Croatian model provide a useful contribution for comparative purposes.

1. Introduction

1.1. Context and Background

The four Agreements between the Holy See and the Republic of Croatia, signed in 1996 and 1998, are international in nature and deal with legal issues, collaboration in the educational and cultural field (AEC), religious assistance to the Catholic faithful members of the armed forces and the police, and economic issues. This set of bilateral texts (also known as the concordat regime) constitutes the treaty regime and the legal framework for relations between the Catholic Church and the Croatian State, according to the first recitals in their respective preambles, where is also stated that “the majority of citizens of the Republic of Croatia are members of the Catholic Church”. This premise, almost thirty years after, is still in force because the last available census data on religion, from 2021, presented the groups for which the persons declared (out of a total population of 3,871,833)1: Catholics, 3,057,735; Orthodox, 128,395; Protestants, 9956; other Christians, 186,960; Muslims, 50,981; Jews, 573; Oriental religions, 3392; other religions, movements, and life philosophies, 37,066; agnostics and sceptics, 64,961; not religious and atheists, 182,188; not declared, 66,581; and unknown, 83,045.

In the preamble to the AEC, the state recognizes the Catholic Church’s historical and current roles in the ethical and moral upbringing (odgoj) of the Catholics, as well as in the cultural and educative field (obrazovanje)2. In this sense, it should be recognized that the teaching of religious education in public schools has already been occurring since the first scholastic instructions in 1774 (Tumir 2009, p. 90). Furthermore, after a century, the Croatian concordat system had a certain legislative autonomy under Austrian imperial rule. This made it possible to regulate education in a very similar way to today, so that even at that time, the right to teach confessional religious education and to run confessional educational establishments was extended to the other religious communities present in Croatia (Savić and Mažuranić 2015, pp. 48–55). The subject was only lost under the communist regime, since 1952, and reinstated in 1991, with the independence of the Republic. It fully recovered this status with the AEC, emulated by successive agreements with other religious communities3.

Regarding the educational system in Croatia, it follows the European common frame. Preschool education in Croatia is meant for children from six months of age until school age. Eight-year elementary education (primary school, ISCED4 1 and 2) is compulsory and free for all children between the ages of six and fifteen. Secondary school takes place during the following four years (ISCED 3). A regular percentage of nearly 90% of them, in primary and secondary, has been inscribed in confessional religious education (including Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Islamic alternatives) (Razum and Barudžija 2023; Srzić 2018). The subject depends on a minimum demand of seven students enrolled per course. This minimum has existed since the reinstatement of the subject in 1991 and is applied to any confessional religious education subject (Razum and Barudžija 2023). Even if it is a single student, they are allowed to receive the subject at the headquarters of the religious entity but with adequate academic control since it must be differentiated from the free religious formation that he can receive in that community (Tumir 2009, pp. 149–50). The alternative subject in primary school, experimentally incorporated in 2023, is called “The World and Me” (Ministarstvo znanosti i obrazovanja 2023), and the alternative subject in secondary school, since the reinstatement of religious education, is ethics.

Institutionally, the Ministry of Science, Education and Youth5 is responsible for the administrative tasks related to preschool education, elementary, and secondary education in Croatia, developing the National Curriculum, approving textbooks, and introducing regulations and standards, as well as other requirements regarding educational work. Under its authority, the Agency for Education and Formation6 is the body that carries out the duties established in the “Regulation on Taking the Professional Exam for Teachers and Professional Associates in Primary Education and Teachers in Secondary Education”.7 According to it, teachers of confessional religious education must also take it. As for the institutional counterpart, the National Catechetical Office of the HBK,8 together with the 14 diocesan catechetical offices, centralizes all ecclesiastical competences, coordinating the recruitment of religion teachers, promoting the quality of classes, monitoring and evaluating the work of teachers, and providing specialized didactic-pedagogical assistance and continuing training. It is worth noting that this office, in collaboration with the ministry, has adopted, since the reinstatement of the subject in 1991, four successive plans and programs for the primary level and three for the secondary level. In every plan, correlation with the whole curriculum is accurately presented (Barudžija 2023).

1.2. Research Questions, Objectives, and Significance of the Study

In this study, the following questions have guided the research: What is the legal framework governing Catholic religious education in Croatian public schools? How do state and ecclesiastical authorities collaborate in the approval and control of religious education programs and content? What are the main challenges in the Croatian model of cooperation between the state and the Catholic Church regarding religious education?

All these questions have helped to define the objectives of the study, mainly, to analyze the legal framework governing Catholic religious education in Croatian public schools, examining the Agreement with the Holy See, the Development Agreement with the Croatian Conference of Bishops, and relevant national laws and regulations, and to explore the collaboration between state and ecclesiastical authorities in religious education, focusing on issues related to enrollment, program approval, content control, and the status and role of religion teachers in Croatian public schools.

This study addresses the gap in research about the whole process of rules implementation and compliance. The Croatian approach to the subject could provide both policymakers and academics with a valuable comparative model. It can be useful for the rules design, enforcement, and compliance related to the religious education, not only for recently independent, post-communist democracies but also for nations with different religious majorities willing to build a state–church cooperation based on the principles of inclusive neutrality.

1.3. Methodology and Sources

This study employed a qualitative research design to explore the intricacies of the collaboration between the state and the Catholic Church in Croatia’s public education system. A case study approach allowed for an in-depth examination of specific instances of cooperation and conflict.

Regarding sources and data collection, the study analyzed legal documents (agreements and regulations), educational policies and practices observed by both ecclesiastical and state authorities in applying such provisions, court cases, and previous studies on religious education in Croatia and comparable European countries. Subsequently, a thematic data analysis was driven, identifying and analyzing themes related to the cooperation model, challenges, and judicial perspectives.

The AEC (as the other three agreements) was ratified in two official versions, Italian and Croatian. Both versions have authentic value, but the explicit meaning that has been given in practice to certain provisions, developed at a national level, is based on the Croatian wording of the text. Regarding the other sources analyzed, it seemed appropriate to use the official translation to English released by the government. When it was not possible to have authentic texts, the translation was prepared by the author. These texts—of the AEC, the AER, and other regulations—are cited or quoted in this study when their analysis is undertaken.

This study collected the main Croatian literature and jurisprudence, especially that of the Constitutional Court, which, in these twenty-five years of rules enforcement, has played a fundamental role in the interpretation and application of this regime. On the other hand, the jurisprudence of Strasbourg and other states in similar situations makes it possible to have qualified evaluations of the way in which the Croatian administrative authorities have facilitated or restricted the exercise of religious freedom related to education.

The author concentrated on the perspective of the church for several reasons. First, the amount of written literature predominantly consisted of scientific results produced and disseminated by authors affiliated with the development and promotion of Catholic religious education. Second, the number of law cases dealing with the church/religious education focused on various harms reportedly suffered by Catholic individuals and entities. Last, the perspective of the state was missing because despite its role in every legal text as either author or co-author, the existing literature has not explicitly addressed it, thereby requiring further research into this area.

In addition to potential biases, this study did not address pedagogical details such as didactics, content of curricula, and textbooks. These aspects are thoroughly covered in comprehensive works already cited (Buchanan and Gellel 2019). Unfortunately, these important aspects are beyond the scope of the text, which remained focused on the legal framework within which these elements are designed, adopted, and implemented.

2. Legal Framework of Catholic Religious Education

The religious pluralism, based on historical grounds, is reflected in the Croatian Constitution. An equal treatment of all religious communities is stated in Article 41, where is also declared the separation between them and the state, at the same time benefiting from state protection and assistance. This article has been used to demand a state neutrality without any public assistance to religious entities and to denounce a favorable treatment of the Catholic Church (Uzelac 1999). The government is still answering to these demands with the same Article 41, where not only is the religious pluralism formally established (Hoblaj et al. 2005), but also the cooperative neutrality is enshrined. The ministry mentions also Article 40, religious freedom in its individual dimension, together with Article 64 §1, on the right and duty to educate one’s children, to explain the basis for the parental right to the religious education of their children (Ministarstvo znanosti i obrazovanja 2019).

Because of this right-duty of parents, the state “undertakes to guarantee” (Article 1 § 1 AEC) the teaching of the Catholic religion in public establishments and with the status of a compulsory subject for those who choose it. These constitutional and bilateral norms are completely aligned with the dictates of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Hrabar 2024), of universal range, and also with the ECtHR jurisprudence on the matter (Gašparić 2020). Moreover, the agreements between the government and other religious entities use the same terms.

The international agreement AEC has been primarily developed by a domestic one, the 1999 Development Agreement, between the Croatian government and the (Catholic) Croatian Episcopal Conference (or Croatian Bishops’ Conference (HBK)), on the Teaching of the Catholic Religion in Public Schools and Catholic Religious Education in Pre-School Institutions (AER 1999).

This regulation responds to the confessional model of religious education, which is the most extended in Europe (Ramet 2014a). Only five Protestant-majority states provide compulsory non-denominational religious education, while there is no subject of Catholic doctrine in Slovenian public schools (Šverc 2008; Pelikan 2014) or France9 (Rothgangel et al. 2014). In the rest of the states, religious education is confessional, with optional subjects (Mandarić 2013, p. 900). Among them, the Croatian model is comparable to the Polish one in terms of enforcement (Osewska 2015; Ramet 2014b; Jäggle et al. 2016). However, mainly due to progressive secularization, a possible decline should not be lost sight of, as in the Czech case (Muchowá 2012; Reban 2014), where some jurisdictions, such as the Archdiocese of Prague, already openly support catechesis in the parish and have stopped trying to revive the subject in state schools.

Apart from Poland, it is worth noting that in Spain and Italy (De Carli 2004), the other countries with the most similar concordat regimes to Croatia, some administrative practices have consolidated a reduction in teaching hours for the subject of religious education. As for Spain, the courts have already judged as discriminatory that, i.e., an autonomous (regional) decree granted religion the “shortest hours”.10

Notwithstanding the majoritarian approach to confessional religious education in Europe, several initiatives to eradicate the subject persist, based on the restrictive interpretation of the constitutional principle of secularism (Fiorita 2012, pp. 106–12) and inspired by the measures undertaken during the Yugoslav communist period (Akmadža 2004, p. 311): models that “banish” the subject of religion, advocating for a course managed by the religious entity itself, activatable by request, outside school hours and without evaluation for the student or economic cost for the institution. These domestic and European postulates reflect an ongoing wider, global controversy about whether confessional religious education still has a role within the post-modern world (Gross 2023), with specific challenges, some of them common both for Catholic and Islamic religious education, such as the anthropological dimensions (Buchanan and Gellel 2019; Franken and Gent 2021).

3. Challenges in the Model of Cooperation

3.1. Enrollment Issues

A first practical aspect specified in the AEC (Article 2 § 2) is that “the school authorities shall give parents and adult pupils the opportunity to avail themselves of this instruction at the time of enrollment in the school, so that their decision does not give rise to any form of discrimination in the field of school activity”, followed by the caution (Article 2 § 3) that the enrollment in the subject of religious education is automatically extended each year, if the interested parties do not state otherwise. The way the pupil must apply for enrollment in this subject is defined by the 1999 Development Agreement11 (AER) in its Article 1 § 1, repeating what is already provided for in Article 1 § 1 AEC, with a specification, in its Article 1 § 4, to emphasize that the position in the timetable is considered the most sensitive circumstance in the work of equalization with the other compulsory subjects: “The teaching of the Catholic religious education shall be held in public elementary and secondary schools under the same conditions as the teaching of other subjects, especially with regard to the position of the teaching of religion within the timetable”.

The most noteworthy aspects developed by the AER are the specifics related to the formalization of enrollment (Article 1, §§ 2, 3 and 6). These were later materialized in a standardized form that the educational center must have, with an informative part on the optional nature of the subject; another on the subject of confessional religious education that is to be chosen since all those whose religious communities have agreed on this faculty with the Croatian government are included; and finally, spaces for the signatures of the requesting parents.12 The difference in the form for secondary school students consists of providing for the joint declaration of the parent and the student, including the signature of the latter, if he or she is over fifteen years of age.

In May 2016, on the occasion of the enrollment for the school year that was to begin in September, eight bishops from the five dioceses gathered in the Zagreb region signed a letter to this effect (Pismo Biskupa Zagrebačke Crkvene Pokrajine Roditeljima Vjeroučenika 2016).13 It is very illustrative because it not only complies with but exceeds the imperative of Article 2 AER. In this letter, the bishops remind parents of their personal and main responsibility in the matter, clarify the contents and objectives of the subject, and warn about juridical aspects that were not specified in either the AEC or the AER but that respond to state administrative practice since the subject was reintroduced at the beginning of the nineties (Eterović 2004, p. 219; Tumir 2009, pp. 144–45):

(1)

They warn that it is not necessary to enroll the child every year, but it is necessary when they start an educational cycle, that is, in the first year of primary and in the first year of secondary.

(2)

To do this, parents must request and fill in the corresponding form at the school, which is obliged to have them and provide them.

In addition to those clarifications, the bishops mention two norms of particular canon law,14 which will apply only to the five dioceses of the signatory bishops, maintaining the AEC regime for the other jurisdictions of the HBK. One rule, intended to be also clarifying, requires parents to sign the enrollment form along with their child if the child is entering the first year of secondary school. This is necessary because most pupils in this situation are generally under fifteen years old, which is the age at which the pupil is also required to sign (Article 1§3 AER). In contrast, in primary school, only the parents’ signatures are required.

The other rule, instead, is a compulsory practice followed by all the dioceses represented in the letter: prior attendance at Catholic religious education lessons at school is one of the necessary requirements to be able to receive first communion and confirmation in their dioceses, in addition to parish catechesis. In this sense, the Episcopal Conference, since the reinstatement of religious education in public schools, insists on differentiating them from parish catechesis, while justifying the necessary enrollment as a requirement for the reception of the sacraments, because both lessons and catechesis are said to be inseparably linked (Šimunović 2018). This norm is recalled in the HBK Working Document on Catechesis (Vijeće za katehizaciju i novu evangelizaciju 2016). There, the Croatian bishops argue that parish catechesis and Catholic religious education at school are two complementary realities of a single religious education. They affirm that these two complementary realities are meant to educate human beings in all their dimensions, especially in the religious dimension. Moreover, to differentiate these realities, the main scope of parish catechesis is also there described as an initiation to a “personal experience of faith”, “lived in a concrete community of faith”, whereas the scope of Catholic religious education is providing a comprehensive “knowledge of the faith”.

However, the enforcement of this norm (compulsory enrollment previous to parish catechesis) has shown some challenges in practice, such as content overlapping (Rukavina Kovačević 2018). There, the cooperation between teacher and priest is critical to overcome such difficulties (Mandarić 2018). The reasons for this measure are to be found in the historical evolution of the Catholic religious education (Šimunović 2018). Under Yugoslav communist rule (1945–1990), religious education was suppressed, but after Croatia’s independence in 1991, it was reintroduced in public schools, necessitating a distinction from parish catechesis. The Catholic Church then focused resources on developing a comprehensive curriculum, with the Croatian Bishops’ Conference emphasizing its importance as complementary to parish catechesis. This strategic shift aimed to counter declining enrollments and ensure widespread, structured religious education.15

There have been ongoing public debates and occasional complaints about this imposition, but not a single claim has been brought to a court. These complaints often come from parents who are not enthusiastic about the religious curriculum but want their children to receive sacraments, as well as from political and secular groups opposing confessional education in public institutions (Šuljić 2024).

3.2. Religion or “The World and Me” in Primary Schools: End of the “Empty Hour” Dispute

In the recently concluded academic year 2023/2024, the subject “The World and Me” was experimentally introduced as an alternative to religious education in primary schools (Ministarstvo znanosti i obrazovanja 2023). This initiative resolved the long-standing debate about the “empty hour” experienced by students not enrolled in religious education. However, it is worth noting that an earlier governmental approach, encapsulated in the Ministerial Recommendation of 3 April 2012, sparked controversy. This recommendation urged primary schools to schedule Catholic religion classes during the first and last hours of the school day, which led to divided opinions. The HBK has been denouncing this discriminatory treatment of the subject since then (Petrović Štefanac 2016). According to the bishops, the recommendation would not respond to the provision of the teaching of the Catholic religion “under the same conditions as the other compulsory subjects”—as established in Articles 1 § 1 AEC and 1 § 4 AER, since it is the subject with the worst schedule. The AER, in the same article, specifies one of these “same conditions”, adding “especially regarding the position of the subject of religious education within the timetable”.

Some authors defended that the ministerial recommendation should be interpreted as imperative (De Carli 2004), arguing that this would prevent students not enrolled in Catholic doctrine from having an “empty hour” (Duić 2014), and precisely because of that hour, they can in turn feel discriminated. These allegations have been collected when denouncing the unconstitutionality of the law ratifying the AER. The Constitutional Court cites some of them in its rejection of the demand (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske 2010), § 2: they refer to the “intolerance” of which students who are not enrolled in the Catholic religion are victims, who are “abandoned to their fate” and are disadvantaged in the averages of evaluations at the end of the cycle compared with those who did study religion. But the most outstanding claim is the proposed solution: “to facilitate a moral education based on science and not on religious ideas”. It is expected that the recent implementation of the experimental subject “The World and Me” satisfies this social demand.

3.3. Secondary: Either Religious Education or Ethics and Reduced Hours in Practice

There is a fixed quantitative guarantee in Article 3 § 1 AER: to dedicate two teaching hours a week to the subject. However, in many secondary schools, only one teaching hour of ethics or religious education is taught (Tumir 2009, p. 225; Vjeronauk i etika—III. gimnazija, Split 2016). The HBK has lamented this breach of agreed regulation in practice (Priopćenje s 47. Plenarnog Zasjedanja HBK 2013), and the Ministry of Education has formally reiterated the two teaching hours (Odluka o Donošenju Kurikuluma Za Nastavni Predmet Katolički Vjeronauk Za Osnovne Škole i Gimnazije u Republici Hrvatskoj n.d.), justified by the signed international agreement (AEC) and the domestic one (AER; Ministarstvo znanosti i obrazovanja 2019).

Facing ethics as an alternative to religious education in secondary schools, because both subjects are offered at the same time, Baldus proposes that the church should not limit itself to defending only the subject of religion, noting that there is a proven Catholic ecclesial attitude of support for religion classes of other confessions (Baldus 2004, p. 120). In fact, there are proposals of confessional cooperation with other Christian denominations, as it is already in practice in Germany (Garmaz and Stala 2019), to preserve the religious education and prevent its eventual substitution by a hypothetical religious culture subject. It is in his best interest to unconditionally support the ethics class for students who do not participate in religious education because, in the opinion of the same author, it relieves the weight and better outlines the religious education class. Moreover, it has been found that religious education, ethics, and civic education subjects share a certain common ground, especially regarding bioethics (Čović and Marinčić 2019).

3.4. Bilateral Norms about Teaching Materials

The AEC (Article 3 § 4) refers to “special agreements between the Government of the Republic of Croatia and the Croatian Bishops’ Conference” regarding “the programs and modalities for the teaching of the Catholic religion in schools of all levels”. An immediate “special agreement”, the AER in its Article 6, went ahead to attribute to the HBK the drafting of programs, contents, textbooks, and other teaching materials at all educational levels. Those materials will be then submitted to the competent state body, the Ministry of Education, for a further “integration into school curricula” and organization of “the publishing procedure in accordance with the rules applicable to other school textbooks”.

According to Article 7 AEC, it is the teachers themselves who must distribute the competencies, distinguishing between content—ecclesiastical authority—and didactic-methodological criteria, which are defined by the state administrative authority. Considering this norm, it should be noted that the application of two regimes converges continuously in the teaching work, especially when assessing the student’s knowledge. The teacher must follow the ministerial instructions in force in the corresponding school year, adapting them to the peculiarities of the subject of religion. To this end, they have the guidelines that the National Catechetical Office prepares periodically.16

The normative specifics carried out by the AER refer, in the first place, to preschool, specifying that religious education and the education of the general program are carried out by the same educator, “within the framework of integral education” (Article 3 § 2 AER). This measure could be justified on two grounds: religious education is thus better integrated into regular programs, and parents do not have to face any extra payment (Tumir 2009, p. 225).

The AER also determines the Minister of Education as the competent state authority for prescribing the curriculum plans and programs (Article 3). But its work appears as a mere administrative authentication procedure because it adopts the proposal of plans and programs drafted by the Croatian Bishops’ Conference. In any case, it is possible to find there some room for a governmental role of supervision in the didactic-pedagogical criteria present in the programs (Gianni 2000, pp. 102–3).

Article 4 AER specifies that textbooks must be considered as those corresponding to compulsory subjects. The only peculiarity lies in the canonical regime applied to ecclesiastical approval. It can be given either by the HBK or by the diocesan bishop (with the consensus of the HBK). This rule coincides with other similar concordat regimes, such as the Italian one (Gianni 2000, p. 103).

The regulation of mixed competences just described does not necessarily represent a state interference in the exercise of institutional religious freedom, as it appears to be to some authors, who firmly oppose any control of teachers and religious content, because it depicts “the purpose of the discipline as indoctrination”, incompatible with academic freedom (Souto Galván 2012, p. 63). However, the co-responsibility of both ecclesiastical and state authorities in the approval and control of programs and contents has already proven to be a guarantee of ecclesiastical autonomy and state control through educational inspection (see Section 5).

3.5. Extracurricular Activities

The Catholic community in which parish catechesis takes place usually promotes, among its many initiatives, activities of a religious nature on school premises. This spatial coincidence has provided the Croatian bishops with an illustrative argument of what they have coined as “the inseparable differentiation and inseparable link between the subject of religious education and parish catechesis” (Vijeće za katehizaciju i novu evangelizaciju 2016, pp. 3–5). This custom is included in Article 4 of the AEC and developed in Article 11 of the AER. These provisions allow the organization of extracurricular activities related to the teaching of religious education, being able to use premises and resources of the school itself, always in agreement with the school authorities: religious-cultural initiatives, free participation of students and teachers in liturgical celebrations, and meeting the diocesan bishop during his pastoral visit to the parish. Of the three possibilities for the use of school premises, only liturgical use depends on the discretion of the school authority as it involves the celebration of public worship in non-ecclesiastical settings, which legitimizes the principal to deny authorization. However, this has not prevented instances of intolerance, such as prohibiting non-liturgical activities. For example, in December 2014, at a preschool center, an educator forbade “Sveti Nikola” (Santa Claus) from entering to distribute gifts to the children, despite most of them being Christians (Petrović Štefanac 2016).

The organization of such activities largely depends on the respective directors of the centers, which host various events related to the Christian traditions of each locality. Moreover, the school council can sometimes overrule the director. This situation is similar to cases in Italy, where the authorization of religious ceremonies has led to administrative appeals by some parents or the director, reaching as high as the Italian Council of State (Fiorita 2012, pp. 137–44). One of the most common traditions is to organize a Nativity scene with figures, accompanied by other events such as the theatrical representation of the Nativity story, living Nativity scenes, carols, and decorations. Some authors, aiming for conciliation, propose these traditions as “mobile or temporary symbology,” suggesting that not only Nativity scenes but also other denominational manifestations be allowed (Fiorita 2012, pp. 126–27).

4. Status of Religion Teachers in Public Schools

In the previous section, it has been possible to observe the responsibility that falls on Catholic religion teachers: they are expected to teach in accordance with the requirements set by the church and the educational authorities. These professionals are the main collaborators of the parents in the religious education of their children, so it is logical that according to Article 3 § 1 AEC, they are required to have a specific qualification, “contemplated by the legislation of the Republic of Croatia”, and to be “deemed suitable by the ecclesiastical authority”.

The same state and ecclesiastical institutions with competence over the programs and contents of the teaching of religion also deal with the teaching staff, from their training to the control of their work. Thus, the quality of the teacher’s work and classes is jointly controlled by the Agency for Education and Formation and by the corresponding diocesan catechetical office. But apart from these challenges related to any subject (educational, didactic), the religion teachers are attributed what Croatian authors call the “school ministry” (Šimunović 2012) or “diaconic and evangelizing orientation” (Šimunović 2018) of their classes.

4.1. Missio Canonica

According to Article 3 § 2 AEC, the first requirement on which religion teachers depend is that of suitability, granted or revoked by the diocesan bishop, by means of the so-called canonical mandate (missio canonica),17 developed in Article 5 AER.

The state authority, for its part, requires compliance with the legal requirements of the teaching staff of public schools, to be able to insert the religion teacher in it (Article 5 § 1AER: “(persons) who possess the necessary requisites contemplated by the legislation in force of the Republic of Croatia”). This regulation sets the standards for the professional qualification and certification of teachers and educational staff in Croatia, ensuring they meet the necessary competencies and standards to teach in primary and secondary schools (see following subchapter).

In Article 5 § 4 AER, the diocesan bishop has the right to revoke by decree the canonical mandate for the teaching of the Catholic religious education, “for defects in regard to correct doctrine and personal morality”. In the practice of the HBK, through the diocesan catechetical offices, three types of canonical mandate are issued: stable, annual, or “conformity”. Only the stable mandate allows the school to employ the teacher on an indefinite basis.

Religion teachers do not access the position by public competition but by canonical mandate and state exam. It is logical, therefore, that the modality of the mandate determines the type of contract. With fully qualified teachers, the contract is usually signed for an indefinite period, correlative to the stable mandate. The annual mandates or “conformity” determine the signing of temporary contracts and are usually issued in cases of incomplete professional qualification, basically to those who have not yet graduated or to those who have not yet passed the professional qualification exam.

In addition to the requirements of professional competence, the National Catechetical Office maintains a practice of uniformity, since the signing of the AER, by which in each diocese a series of criteria of a spiritual nature must also be verified for the granting of the missio (Tumir 2009, pp. 172–77). These points should be assessed in the “Recommendation of the parish priest”, who should detail as much information as possible about the candidate’s life of faith (verify participation in a movement or community, the spiritual literature they use, and their testimony of life), as well as their active participation in parish life.

The Croatian concordat regime of the missio has a de jure exception, which is found towards the end of the AER, in Article 12, because the parish priest, by his very condition (“the nature of their office”), does not need a canonical mandate to be able to teach religion classes, and his professional qualification also implies that required of religion teachers. So, it is not a privilege but a right of its own (Mandarić 2018). But the canonical mandate exception does not apply to the state exam, so any interested priest, like anyone else, must take it if he wishes to teach religion in public schools (see below). This concordat exception makes it possible to differentiate between the activity of religion teachers, qualified and valued in Croatia with the terms “pastoral” or “diakonia” mentioned above, and the activity of bishops assisted by their parish priests. Both are ecclesial activities, but only the second can be considered as institutional of the church.

4.2. Professional Qualification

According to Article 6 AER, the university degrees provided for as initial training can be those related to both philosophical-theological studies and studies in religious and catechetical pedagogy. In addition to priests, men, and consecrated people, the number of lay graduates, the vast majority of whom are women, has progressively increased in Croatia (Hoblaj et al. 2005, p. 306).

A final exception clause in Article 6 confirms that the missio canonica is in fact an ecclesiastical administrative act that has a direct effect on the state system since it enables access to an employment status for persons who, in certain exceptional circumstances (when it is not possible to ensure a suitable person with theological studies), do not meet the legal requirements of professional competence, both canonical and state, but those of a general nature, such as mastery of the Croatian language, the state of health appropriate for teaching, or the absence of certain criminal records.

Article 7 AER regulates the point of connection of competence, establishing that the HBK keeps the Ministry of Education informed about the higher education centers in which the qualifications listed in the previous article can be obtained. Once the higher qualification has been obtained, teachers or candidates receive continuous training also organized jointly by the Agency for Education and Teaching and by the corresponding catechetical office (cf. Article 8 AER).

On the other hand, it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Education to handle matters relating to the state examination and the internal promotion of teachers (cf. Article 9 AER). The Agency for Education and Formation is the body subordinated to the ministry that carries out the examination according to the “Regulation on Taking the Professional Exam for Teachers and Professional Associates in Primary Education and Teachers in Secondary Education”.18 This “professional examination” consists of an evaluation process that, once passed, qualifies the candidate to teach religion in primary and/or secondary, issuing a certificate for this purpose. It is not, therefore, a competition for a specific teaching position in a public school but a state (official) recognition or accreditation.

As for continuous training, although participation in activities is optional, attendance in Croatia is very numerous. The attendees evaluated this training as very satisfactory, almost at the same level as the initial training (Mandarić 2013). Therefore, the motivation and use of multidisciplinary seminars and workshops in Croatia is due not only to the expectation of renewal of canonical mandate and employment contract but also to the quality of the continuing education offered (Jakobfi 2019). A factor that contributes to this interest is that of the financing of continuing education because the cost is assumed by the HBK only partially, with the teachers having to pay part of it (Hoblaj et al. 2005, p. 299). Another factor is the effort to coordinate and improve the teaching of religion, carried out by a few teachers who, regardless of the promotion to mentors and counselors, have been appointed senior advisers, according to Article 10 § 2 AER (in the Italian version they are called counselors, and the Croatian version calls them supervisors). Half of their salary depends on the corresponding school and the other half on the Episcopal Conference:

4.3. Teachers’ Employment Status

According to Article 3 § 3 AEC, after the entire process of training and qualification, both ecclesiastical and state, the religion teacher who has accessed a certain position must be included for all purposes in the teaching staff of the corresponding school. However, it is a peculiar employment situation: stable but not permanent or “acquired” by public competition. This peculiarity, applied in practice since 1999, was finally included, through a 2011 reform,19 as one more of the possible exceptions to the legal principle by which the employment relationship in a school institution must be based on an employment contract derived from a public competition. Thus, the Act on Education in Primary and Secondary School, in its current Article 107 § 10(6), does consent that exceptionally, a contract of employment without an open competition may be concluded “for the position of religious education teacher”.

This statutory equality in rights and obligations is discussed on two levels. The first is ideologically based and polemicizes on the model of cooperative neutrality of the state (Martín de Agar y Valverde 2013, p. 165). A reduced parliamentarian representation insists on returning to the political circumstances of the absence of religious education or, at least, that it did not have a state budget allocation (Ministarstvo Financija 2014; Benačić and Miloš 2014). The Ministry of Education basically assumes the financing of the salaries of all teachers and educators of religion—not only Catholic—and for this it allocates a sum that, due to its austerity, has escaped all public criticism (Filipović 2016, p. 18).

The second level, which has been the cause of litigation and has given rise to a judgment of the ECtHR in the recent Travaš v. Croatia case (European Court of Human Rights 2016),20 continually calls into question the legitimacy of the revocation of the canonical mandate (see section below). Nor is it necessary that the cause of unequal treatment be the revocation of the canonical mandate, and it may happen that there is a measure of reduction in working hours, due to the reduction in the number of students whose parents request that the subject of religion be taught to them. This extreme situation is already known in countries like the Czech Republic (Muchowá 2012) but also in a few Croatian towns in Istra and Primorje (Šestan Kučić 2015). In such cases, the school should rather act as with respect to any other teacher of compulsory subjects and assign some hours of class in other compatible subjects21 or certain tasks, scheduled within the weekly schedule. Since the teachers concerned retain their missio, the corresponding diocesan catechetical office will also try to find solutions for them, preferably before the beginning of the school year, when, in accordance with Article 5 § 2 AER, they are informed of the needs for the coming academic year.

5. Judicial and Administrative Perspectives on Religious Education

This last section presents multifaceted judicial and administrative perspectives on religious education, collecting claims related to enrollment issues, discrimination, intromission, and legitimate discrimination towards teachers out of a qualified duty of loyalty.

5.1. Former “Empty Hour” in Primary School

Regarding the now obsolete objection of the “empty hour” in primary school (see Section 4.1), there are judicial pronouncements in Croatia. Specifically, the Croatian Supreme Court, in a judgment of 15 November 2013 (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske 2013), based on domestic law—including the AEC—and Strasbourg case law, denied that discrimination occurs in the case of students who, in primary education, from the first to the third year, have not enrolled in the only optional subject, which is a confessional one, and could choose from any confessional religious education subject but are not allowed to choose a non-religious subject.

Those who consider that the student could be discriminated because no evaluation appears in the section corresponding to that subject in the academic certificate argue that this gap evidences their beliefs (or lack of beliefs). In the fourth year, students are offered one more optional subject (a foreign language), and from the fifth year, this offer is expanded. This does not mean that the absence of an alternative to religion in the first three years and the consequent lack of evaluation is a reason for discrimination, because any student, regardless of what his or her beliefs are, can enroll in the subject of religion (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske 2013), which becomes compulsory only after having been requested. This jurisprudential justification is aligned with the confessional authors’ justification, who claim that the current programs of the subject of Catholic religion also contain comparative elements with other religions (Jäggle 2015), thus favoring the much awaited interculturality (Catterin 2015; Kovač 2023; Razum and Barudžija 2023), especially in the first school years (Razum 2017). Moreover, in addition to the optional nature of the subject of religion, it has been argued that its plural program, both in content and in didactic method—jointly guaranteed by the ecclesiastical and state authorities—prevents any possible manifestation of discriminatory treatment of non-Catholic students (Rukavina Kovačević and Mrnjaus 2017), whether they are enrolled in the Catholic religion hours or not. In fact, it has been found that religion teachers (of all denominations authorized by agreement) in Croatian public schools as a whole show a high level of inclusive attitude towards differences and inequalities in the classroom (Filipović 2016).

5.2. Claims of Discrimination or Intromission

The Croatian model, because of its res mixta character (Baldus 2004), is constantly under scrutiny (Pažin 2010). An example is a Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe in 2009, which admitted the complaint of the European Committee for Social Rights against the Republic of Croatia for lack of adequate sex education (Mitak 2010). In that complaint, the subject of Catholic religious education was also stressed as discriminatory against some groups of Croatian citizens. However, at a domestic level, the configuration of co-responsibility between ecclesiastical and governmental authorities has made it possible to clarify religion teachers’ positions, when they have been accused of discrimination or intromission:

(a)

A first significant case is the complaint that an association filed against a Catholic religion teacher for the alleged homophobic content of one of the classes she taught. The Croatian Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the first instance declaring the claim unfounded (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske 2015). In line with the legal provisions already described, the court starts from the recognition of the religion class as a manifestation of the teacher’s religious freedom. It continues to exclude possible discriminatory treatment because a certain doctrine—on homosexuality—is being imparted to children whose parents have chosen to do so. The most innovative element about the ruling is, however, that the magistrates go beyond what is required, considering whether this teaching activity could represent a “nuisance”, as a milder form of discrimination, included in Article 3 § 1 of the same law on the prevention of discrimination.22 In this way, the Supreme Court identifies the purpose of this teaching activity as that of “teaching a didactic unit during the hour of religion”, which in no way harms dignity. It concludes the argument by recalling that the plaintiff has not referred to any specific affected person either but instead seeks indirect and abstract protection with a collective complaint.

It is worth noting a finding that the judgment uses hypothetically (§ 5). If any kind of offence on the part of the defendant teacher had been proven, then the court would have considered whether the provisions of Article 9 § 3 of the same law on prevention were respected. This rule requires that any exception be interpreted in accordance with the purpose and objectives that determine it. Here, too, the jurisprudential pronouncement offers a very valuable interpretation for future cases: it considers that this legal requirement formulates the principle of proportionality and that this has been respected, based precisely on the constitutional and supralegal nature of the teacher’s right to religious freedom.

(b)

In another case, a religion teacher was accused of having taught content specific to civic education. An inspector from the corresponding ministerial agency ordered, at the request of the accusing citizen group, an investigation into the case, with the intervention of teaching materials in the possession of the teacher and with interviews with students, concluding that the accusations were unfounded (Petrović Štefanac 2016). Despite the reality of the facts, the divulgation of the accusations had already caused, in any case, damage both to the school and to the subject itself and to the teacher. It should be noted that nevertheless, some overlapping, with a sense of transversality, is allowed by the ministry. For example, the subject of Catholic religious education for secondary school contains some units where the Catholic values are paired with those governing the European Union (Prović 2020).

5.3. Teachers: Legitimate Discrimination Out of a Qualified Duty of Loyalty

The main cause of litigation regarding religion teachers has been the revocation of the canonical mandate due to a divorce followed by a civil marriage. The jurisprudence of the Croatian Constitutional Court is uniform in recognizing the legitimate granting or revocation of the missio, which entails a sui generis employment relationship of religion teachers (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske 2013, p. 10). However, the provisions of the AER in development of the AEC on this matter have been questioned as to the scope of their terms. Specifically, Omejec (2013) contrasts two provisions in which she considers that there is an overreach of the AER with respect to what was agreed in the AEC: according to Article 3 § 1 AEC, “the teaching of religion shall be given by qualified teachers, deemed suitable by the ecclesiastical authority”, whereas in Article 5 § 2 AER, it is stated that “the diocesan Bishop shall appoint a suitable person to carry out the teaching of religious education”. The author considers that the clause of the AER—of legal status—exceeds the framework of the international obligations assumed by Croatia. In the AEC, “only the prior consent of the ecclesiastical authority is recognized so that a certain person can give this type of lessons, but it is not imposed that this person be determined by the representative of the church” (Omejec 2013, p. 2).

On the procedure to be followed in the recruitment of religion teachers, there is also a Ministerial Instruction of 2000, which was not published in the Croatian Official Gazette (Narodne Novine, NN)23 (Krapac 2013). The minister, in one of the last paragraphs, indicates that “the school must act in the following way (§ 3(1)): If the diocesan bishop withdraws the canonical mandate for reasons of deficiencies related to the correctness of teaching and personal morality, the teacher must be dismissed under the procedure for extraordinary dismissal of the Labor Act, Article 107”.

The automatism that the minister imposes on the contracting schools, regarding the extraordinary dismissal as a direct consequence of the loss of the missio, could be considered limiting the “legal-labor status of the religion teacher in primary and secondary schools”. It is very likely that this governmental provision is exceeding the regulatory framework of the AEC and the AER. In any event, it appears to be contrary to the applicable employment regime—the general regime—because the contracting authorities must seek to relocate the employee before dismissing them. In fact, as it is mentioned in the Circular, the Labor Act24 is applicable and not a sectoral regime for civil servants (Drmić 2013). According to its Article 7, it must be clear that “the continuation of the employment is no longer possible”.

Consequently, the teacher who meets the legal requirements, that is, who has a university degree and passed the state exam, is therefore still qualified to exercise their profession as an educator, teacher, or professor in subjects other than the Catholic religion, depending on the group of subjects included in the certificate of qualification—obtained after the state exam (cf. Article 9 AER)—and the state regime of subjects offered in each school year. The statutory precariousness of these teachers is therefore based not only on the insecurity of a rescindable certificate of suitability (due to moral grounds such as remarriage) but also on the difficulty of obtaining an alternative occupation afterward. The known Croatian cases concern secondary school teachers, who had lost their missio because they divorced and remarried civilly (the most famous is the Travaš case, for having reached the ECtHR), with higher degrees in theology (cf. Article 6 § 1 AER), and the subjects they could teach at the time, in addition to the Catholic religion, were those of ethics and culture. This legal possibility should be thoroughly examined because the respective curriculum programs differ significantly, making this alternative rather inconsistent.

In the Travaš case, Croatian courts insist on the evidence that the two schools where the teacher worked sought, unsuccessfully, a way to relocate him before proceeding with the ordinary dismissal. Significant is the argument of the ECtHR, which in its exculpatory judgment of the Croatian state, considers this effort of the employers proven because the appellant teacher has not stated anything that could question the diligence of the schools (Travaš v. Croatia, § 103).

The peculiar status of religion teachers is not exclusive to Catholic teachers. The agreements signed by the Croatian government with some religious communities, of the same legal status as the AER, contain identical provisions on religious mandates for the teaching of the respective religions. This religious plurality prevents the Catholic Church from being accused of discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis other religious communities. At the same time, it allows any religious entity, in such circumstances of selection of teachers based on conditions of suitability, not to be affected by a prohibition of discrimination in the choice of a religion teacher, because this religious autonomy is the fruit of the already mentioned “cooperative neutrality of the State” (Martín de Agar y Valverde 2013). In favor of religious communities, the Croatian Act on the Prevention of Discrimination excludes the prohibition of discrimination in cases of (Article 9 § 2 (5)) “unfavorable treatment on the occasion of employment recruitment, registration as a member or in an activity that conforms to the doctrine and mission of churches and registered religious communities, as well as other public or private organizations acting in accordance with the Constitution and the laws, if required by religious doctrine, beliefs or objectives”.

According to the provisions of the Prevention of Discrimination Law, the status of religion teachers, as workers allegedly discriminated against—by the application of canonical criteria as a cause for termination of the public employment relationship—would be perfectly in line with the requirements of “religious doctrine, beliefs or objectives”. This status is based on a special bond of trust. Proof of this is the jurisprudence of the ECtHR, which in Travaš v. Croatia cites the doctrine previously consolidated by its Grand Chamber, in Fernández Martínez v. Spain, regarding the content of the “qualified duty of loyalty”:

Travaš v. Croatia, § 98: “(…) in order for a religion to remain credible, the requirement of a heightened duty of loyalty may relate also to questions of the way of life of religious teachers. (…) it would therefore be a delicate task to make a clear distinction between the applicant’s personal conduct and the requirements related to his professional activity (…)”.

Subsidiarily, teachers who lose the canonical mandate try to prove that instead of a lack of renewal or a simple termination of contract, they have been victims of dismissal for non-professional reasons and linked to the exercise of fundamental rights, specifically to private and family life and even to marriage. But in fact, it happens that in Croatia as elsewhere, the teachers themselves inform the bishop of the “new situation” (European Court of Human Rights 2016; Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Islas Baleares 2014), or this is disseminated in the media (European Court of Human Rights 2014). Thus, in the Travaš case, the ECtHR uses the link between personal conduct in private life and professional activities (§ 54) to assess whether there is a violation of Article 8 ECHR. It concludes that the degree of publicity of the situation contrary to religious precepts is not decisive for dismissal (Travaš v. Croatia, § 99): “the Court considers that the fact that no publicity was given to the applicant’s conduct and lifestyle, seen by the Church as being contrary to the precepts of its teachings and doctrine, is not a decisive element in the assessment of the consequences of the decision on the applicant’s dismissal”.

Finally, having proved the legitimacy of the bishop’s control of suitability, based on the teacher’s renewed fidelity to the faith of the church (Mateljan 2011), it is worth asking what direction the hoped-for inclusive criterion of the baptized who have divorced and remarried civilly will take, for which, according to Pope Francis, they must be more integrated “into the Christian community in the various possible ways, avoiding any occasion of scandal. (…) It is necessary, therefore, to discern which of the various forms of exclusion currently practiced in the liturgical, pastoral, educational and institutional spheres can be overcome” (Franciscus Papa 2016, p. 299).

However, in addition to the caution about scandal, the Pope also affirms that “obviously, if someone displays an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something different from what the Church teaches, he cannot pretend to give catechesis or preach, and in this sense there is something that separates them from the community (cf. Mt 18:17)” (§ 297). It could be then affirmed that both the practice of the Croatian Catholic hierarchy and Croatian jurisprudence are aligned about what is to be understood by the correct doctrine and witness of Christian life.

6. Conclusions

The implementation of Catholic religious education in the public education system, through the Agreement with the Holy See and its Development Agreement with the Croatian Conference of Bishops, has subsequently been emulated in agreements with other religious denominations.

Maintaining enrollment numbers is crucial for preserving the significance of Catholic religious education. While fostering a healthy competition with alternative subjects is desirable, enforcing enrollment as a prerequisite for receiving sacraments is not advisable.

As for alternative subjects, it is expected that the recent implementation of the experimental subject “The World and Me” in primary schools will meet the social demand for children not enrolled in religious education. However, it remains uncertain whether the scheduling of this now “filled hour” will be promoted to the same conditions as other compulsory subjects, i.e., optimized to a better position in the timetable as legally required.

The co-responsibility of both ecclesiastical and state authorities in the approval and control of programs and content has proven to be a guarantee of ecclesiastical autonomy and state oversight through educational inspections. This configuration has also clarified the position of religion teachers when they have faced accusations of discrimination or interference. It should be noted that some overlapping, with a sense of transversality, is allowed by the ministry. Religious education, ethics, and civic education subjects share common ground, particularly in social values and bioethics, and their respective curricula include cross-disciplinary references to history, arts, and social and natural sciences.

After obtaining the canonical mandate, religion teachers must take a state exam that qualifies the candidate to teach religion in primary and/or secondary schools. It is not, therefore, a competition for a specific teaching position in a public school but a state (official) recognition or accreditation. The situation resembles a de facto church quota for every available position in Catholic religious education. This system appears to necessitate only a passing grade on a state exam for candidates appointed by the bishop. This practice raises questions about the intersection of ecclesiastical influence and state educational standards and suggests further examination within the context of church–state relations and educational policy.

The helplessness experienced by some dismissed religion teachers who go to court stems from the difficulty state authorities face in relocating them to teaching positions in other humanities subjects for which they are qualified. This is the point on which, in Croatia, the debate should be based since the statute of the missio is recognized, at both the national and the European level. Proof of this is the case law of the ECtHR, which in the case of Travaš v. Croatia cites its doctrine on the “qualified duty of loyalty”. However, the moral reason must be reminded: maintaining one canonical marriage while remarrying civilly after a civil divorce. The situation is almost paired with that faced by priests and consecrated persons who must rebuild their lives when they no longer meet the moral requirements, such as leaving celibacy to marry. In this sense, another judicial outcome, already extended in other countries, is considering the motivation for mandate revocation to be unfounded, frequently citing reasons related to private life rather than the teaching role. Consequently, the dismissals are invalidated, and the teachers are allowed to continue in their positions without ecclesiastical authorization.

Future research should explore the perspective of the state in confessional religious education within the Croatian framework. Additionally, the challenges in didactics within university programs for teaching confessional religious education, along with the cross-disciplinary connections (transversality) between religious education and other subjects, warrant further examination. Another area of interest is the periodic instrumentalization or targeting of religious education in public schools, which often exclusively focuses on the Catholic Church and its teachers, while other affiliations are overlooked.