A Legal Analysis of Austria’s Cooperation Model for Interreligious and Religious Education in the School Context

Abstract

This article examines the legal and practical dimensions of religious education (RE) in Austria with a particular focus on interreligious education as an emerging pedagogical and societal response to increasing religious and cultural diversity. It begins by situating the discussion within Austria’s historical and constitutional framework, in which RE is governed as a res mixta—a joint responsibility shared between the state and legally recognized churches and religious societies (CRSs). The analysis highlights how this model of power-sharing is enshrined in both constitutional and ordinary legislation, granting CRSs extensive autonomy in the organization, content, and supervision of denominational RE. Despite the absence of explicit legal provisions for interreligious education, the article demonstrates that interreligious teaching practices can be implemented through cooperative arrangements between CRSs, particularly when aligned with national educational goals and international commitments to tolerance, religious freedom, and other human rights. It further analyses curricular references to interreligiosity across various denominational RE programs and discusses the institutional potential for integrating interreligious competencies into teacher training and school practice. Drawing on the example of the project Integration through Interreligious Education at the University Graz, a cooperative initiative between the Catholic Church and the Islamic Religious Society in Austria (IGGÖ) from 2017 to 2023, the article outlines how interreligious education was legally contextualized and contractually formalized. The article concludes that interreligious education, though legally unregulated, is both feasible and desirable within Austria’s current legal and educational framework. It calls for greater normative clarity and policy support to ensure the sustainability and broader implementation of such models, which foster mutual understanding and peaceful coexistence in a pluralistic society.

1. Introduction

Amidst growing geopolitical tensions and identity-driven culture wars in Europe—particularly concerning questions of order, security, integration, and assimilation, especially in relation to migration and Islam—calls for intercultural and interreligious projects are becoming increasingly urgent. This is due not least to profound changes in Austrian society, as well as in other European countries, and the resulting transformation of cultural identity from a predominantly Roman Catholic orientation toward a pluralistic one.

To illustrate, in 1951, 89% of the Austrian population identified as Roman Catholic, 6.2% as Protestant, and 3.8% as atheist. Over the following seven decades, Austrian society underwent fundamental transformations, driven by factors such as the arrival of “guest workers” from the Balkans and Turkey—invited to support post-World War II reconstruction through labor migration—as well as the reception of numerous refugees, many from predominantly Muslim societies, including Bosnia, Chechnya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. By 2021, only 55.2% of Austrians identified as Roman Catholic and 3.8% as Protestant (A.B./H.B.), whereas 8.3% identified as Muslim and 4.9% as Orthodox Christian. The most significant growth was recorded among those unaffiliated with any religious community, who now make up 22.4% of the population, followed by Muslims, whose number has doubled over the past two decades (Statistik Austria 2022). Equally striking developments are observable in the urban public school sector. Until the early 21st century, most primary school classrooms in Vienna were still majority Catholic, albeit with increasing numbers of atheist, Muslim, and Orthodox pupils. In the school year 2023/24, Muslim children constituted the largest religious group in Vienna’s primary schools, accounting for 35% of pupils, followed by pupils without religious affiliation, who make up 26%, Catholics with 21%, Orthodox Christians with 13%, and Protestants with 2% (ORF 2024).

One response to this changing societal landscape in the educational context has been the promotion of interreligious projects (Jäggle 2008) and the introduction of a mandatory ethics course in 2021—currently limited to middle and upper secondary schools and subject to evaluation in 2025, after which it may be implemented in primary schools as well (Müller 2022). At the same time, the growing visibility of Muslims has triggered identity-political responses—particularly from parties to the right of centre—rooted in nationalist and ethnically exclusive conceptions of identity. These are evident in measures such as the so-called “burqa ban” (2017), the headscarf ban in primary schools (2019), one year later annulled by the Constitutional Court (VfSlg 20435/2020), and the 2021 amendment of the Austrian Islam Act 2015 (Islamgesetz) (Kramer 2024, p. 77).

The effects of these societal changes are also felt in schools. Particularly in urban areas with highly heterogeneous populations, a number of so-called “index schools” or “hotspot schools” have emerged, where school principals increasingly describe cultural and religious diversity as a growing challenge—especially in light of perceived attitudes among pupils that are anti-democratic, patriarchal, misogynistic, racist, antisemitic, or homophobic (Wiesinger 2018; Erkurt 2020; Klar 2024; Kramer 2024). Considering Central Europe’s increasingly heterogeneous societies and the intensifying conflicts in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, there is a pressing need for greater mutual understanding, dialogue, and exchange. This is vital if the oft-invoked goal of social integration is to succeed—not only for immigrant communities but for society as a whole. Schools, as sites of daily encounter among pupils from diverse social, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds, are particularly suited to this task (Jäggle 2008, p. 5). Such a task follows the term “integration” according to Section 2 (1) of the Integration Act (Federal Law Gazette I No. 68/2017) as a process for society as a whole that is based on personal interaction and whose success depends on the participation of all people, citizens and immigrants alike.

Although numerous legal texts address denominational and/or cooperative religious education in Austria (Schwendenwein 2009; Gastl 2013; Potz 2018; Rees 2018), they often fail to adequately consider the lived experiences of those who engage with this legal framework in practice. In this respect, the present article builds upon the contribution Shared Religious Education through Christian–Islamic Team Teaching (Gmoser et al. 2024b) and seeks to both explain the legal foundations of denominational and interreligious religious education and to explore its practical implementation. Specifically, the article pursues two questions: (1) How is denominational religious education (RE) legally structured within the Austrian education system? (2) How can the practical implementation of interreligious education—based on cooperation among various religious societies—succeed despite the lack of a legal basis?

To address the first question, this article draws upon findings from my interdisciplinary doctoral dissertation on the legal and practical relationship between the state and the Islamic Religious Society in Austria (IGGÖ) in the school context. The normative legal framework was examined through doctrinal legal analysis, while the “law in practice”—that is the social reality of law (Rehbinder 2019)—was explored using qualitative social research, including an examination of the administration, supervision, and organization of religious education in Viennese secondary schools (Kramer 2024). The second question is addressed by referencing the interdisciplinary study “Integration through Interreligious Education” and our above-mentioned publication (Gmoser et al. 2024a) with particular attention to the contractual arrangements between the Roman Catholic Church, the IGGÖ, and our Institute for Catechetics and Religious Education at the Faculty of Catholic Theology, University of Graz.

This article aims to support the academic discourse on interreligious educational projects—especially among scholars of law, political science, and religious pedagogy—by providing a deeper understanding of Austria’s model for denominational and interreligious religious education. It also seeks to illuminate both the strengths and weaknesses of this model. It is argued that Austria’s current school system offers all 16 legally recognized churches and religious societies (CRSs) a solid and sustainable platform for denominational and interreligious education, grounded in principles of power-sharing, autonomy, and cooperation. This platform enables joint instruction by religious educators from different CRSs—an arrangement that has not always existed in Austria. In this light, the legal analysis is preceded by a brief historical overview of state–church relations in Austria.

2. Austria’s Historical Context: The Relationship Between State and Religion

Austria’s long-standing relationship between state and religion is deeply intertwined with the Roman Catholic Church. From the 15th century until the mid-19th century, this relationship was characterized by a system of State Church Governance (Staatskirchentum) under the Habsburg Monarchy. Within this framework, the Church was fully integrated, appropriated, and controlled by the political authority (Pree 1984, p. 4). In the 16th and 17th centuries, both Protestantism and Islam were perceived as existential threats to the Habsburg Empire and the Catholic Church. The successful Counter-Reformation and the military defeat of the Ottomans at the Battle of Vienna in 1683 consolidated the Catholic Church’s status as the sole officially recognized religion. In the spirit of Enlightenment and amidst the revolutionary currents of the late 18th century, Emperor Joseph II issued the Edicts of Toleration in 1781 and 1782, which for the first time granted limited religious rights to Protestants, Orthodox Christians, and Jews. However, until 1850, the Catholic Church functioned as the state church (Schima 2015, p. 112).

In the 19th century, the principle of state supremacy over the church (Staatskirchenhoheit) became established—marking a system characterized by the institutional separation between state and church. Unlike the earlier model of Staatskirchentum, this framework granted the church a limited degree of autonomy, typically restricted to its innermost affairs. Nevertheless, the church remained subject to extensive restrictions and burdens, including far-reaching state intervention and supervisory rights, e.g., state oversight of church property administration and involvement in the appointment of ecclesiastical office holders (Pree 1984, p. 4). Between 1855 and 1867, Austria adopted the Coordination System (Koordinationssystem), wherein the state and churches were regarded as equal, sovereign entities whose relationship was governed by agreements—such as concordats in the case of the Catholic Church. Under this system, the state acknowledged the church’s jurisdiction in areas such as marriage and education. Following the revolutionary upheavals of 1848, coordination served in the neo-absolutist period as a means to reinforce the alliance of throne and altar and to reconstruct societal and political order along reactionary lines. Nevertheless, liberal influences began to gain ground (Potz and Schinkele 2024, p. 12). In 1861, the Protestant Church received official recognition through the Protestant Act (Protestantengesetz), which was re-enacted in 1961.

With the December Constitution of 1867, including the constitutional Act on the Fundamental Rights of Citizens (Staatsgrundgesetz, StGG) that is still constitutionally valid today, the model of Staatskirchenhoheit was reinstated. Churches were placed under state supervision, although the state refrained from interfering in sacra interna. The administration of education was transferred to the state, except for religious education. The so-called May Laws of 1868 regulated the state’s supervisory authority over schools, ecclesiastical jurisdiction in matters of marriage, and interconfessional relations. While the Catholic Church maintained a dominant position, the 1855 Concordat was gradually curtailed and ultimately abolished in 1874 by the Catholic Act (Katholikengesetz). The Catholic Law expanded and strengthened state control and supervision over the Church and its internal regulations (Schwendenwein 1992; Ortner 2000; Potz and Schinkele 2024). In that same year, 1874, the Recognition Act (Anerkennungsgesetz) was passed, enabling other CRSs to attain legal status. The Israelite Religious Society was among those recognized in 1890.

Islam was formally recognized in Austria through the Islam Act of 1912, primarily for Muslims adhering to the Hanafi school of jurisprudence. However, an institutionalized religious body (Kultusgemeinde) was established only in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1909. The IGGÖ—as mentioned above—was not recognized until 1979, based on the 1912 Islam Act. Following the establishment of the First Republic in 1919, elements of coordination and cooperation between state and religion regained significance. During the National Socialist period, however, tendencies toward a more rigid separation of church and state reemerged. Since 1945, the coordination model has once again become the prevailing paradigm, referred to in post-war Austria as a Concordance System (Konkordanzsystem) (Gampl 1971, p. 55).

In the decades following World War II, Austria gradually transformed into a country of immigration, giving rise to an increasingly heterogeneous population and a correspondingly pluralized legal framework regulating religious affairs. For example, the 1987 decision of the Austrian Constitutional Court (VfSlg 11574/1987), which annulled the limitation of Islamic representation to the Ḥanafī rite, paved the way for the institutionalisation of additional Islamic entities. In 2010, the same court determined that the IGGÖ could no longer claim exclusive representation of all Muslims residing in the country, although the IGGÖ still declares to encompass adherents of the four Sunni and the three Shiite rite legal schools. In 2013 one further Islamic-Alevite Society as CRS and one Shīʿī Society as a “state registered confessional society” have since been established. The latter form is a preliminary legal status that, unlike legally recognized CRSs, does not confer the right to provide RE in schools (Kramer 2024).

Today, Austria’s constitutional court (VfSlgNr. 18965/2009) refers to this framework as a Cooperation System (Kooperationssystem), underscoring mutual engagement between the state and its 16 CRSs (12 Christian Churches, two Islamic, one Israelite and one Buddhist Society). However, more recent amendments and revisions to the legal framework governing religious communities—such as the amendment of the Israelite Act (Israelitengesetz 1890) in 2012 and the complete re-enactment of the Islam Act in 2015—have reintroduced stronger mechanisms of state control and supervision. These developments reflect a partial resurgence of elements associated with the model of Staatskirchenhoheit (Schima 2018, p. 7; Potz 2017).

Despite the tightening of regulatory requirements for individual CRSs, the ongoing pluralization of Austria’s religious-legal landscape has had direct organizational implications for religious education (RE) in schools, particularly in enabling interreligious cooperation. These developments frame the context for the following analysis of the legal relationship between state and religion in the school system, with RE as a paradigmatic res mixta.

3. The Legal Relationship Between State and Religion in the School System: Religious Education (RE) as a Res Mixta

Since 1867, religious education (RE) in Austria has been classified as a classical res mixta, in which the state shares educational responsibilities and goals with churches and religious societies (CRSs). Prior to the enactment of the Constitutional Act on the Fundamental Rights of Citizens (StGG) in 1867, the entire school system was under the control of the Roman Catholic Church. Following this constitutional shift, only religious education in the denominational form remained the responsibility of the CRSs. The earliest constitutional provisions governing RE in Austria’s school system are found in Articles 15 and 17 of the StGG:

“Every legally recognized church and religious society shall have the right to communal public religious practice, shall regulate and administer its internal affairs independently, shall retain possession and enjoyment of its institutions, foundations, and funds designated for religious worship, education, and charitable purposes, but shall be subject to the general laws of the state like any other society.”

(Article 15 StGG)

“Responsibility for religious education in schools shall lie with the respective church or religious society. The state shall have the right of supreme direction and supervision over the entire system of education and instruction.”

(Article 17 para. 4 and 5 StGG)

While Article 14 StGG guarantees individual religious freedom, Article 15 secures the collective religious freedom of legally recognized CRSs. This collective freedom results in power-sharing between the state and the CRSs in specific sectors of public life—most notably in the domains of worship (cultus), education, and charity. While the state retains exclusive authority in legislation and implementation across these domains, it recognizes CRSs as independent actors in their internal affairs. According to Article 10 (1) no. 13 of the Austrian Federal Constitutional Law (Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz, B-VG), matters pertaining to religious affairs, namely affairs of cultus (Kultus), fall under the exclusive legislative and administrative competence of the federal government. The term cultus, in Austrian law, refers to the legal status of CRSs and their external relations (Pree 1984, p. 2). This includes their formal recognition, the registration of “state registered confessional societies”, and all legal rights and obligations associated with these statuses. In such areas, the interests of the state and CRSs intersect and require coordinated cooperation, especially in the educational sector. Article 17 StGG grants CRSs autonomy in the provision of religious education.

This autonomy means that only the CRSs—as the legally designated providers—are authorized to determine the religious content (subject to approval by the state authorities), doctrinal orientation, and pedagogical methods of their RE (Potz and Schinkele 2024). However, the number of state-financed weekly RE lessons is not determined autonomously by the CRSs but is stipulated in the curriculum regulations, to which § 2 (2) of the Religious Education Act 1949 (Religionsunterrichtsgesetz, RelUG) refers. This provision mentions a “stipulated number of weekly hours” but does not define a specific amount. In practice, a maximum of two weekly RE lessons per class has become historically established, although the actual number depends on the number of pupils and the availability of qualified teachers. A reduction in the number of lessons is only formally permissible under the conditions specified in § 7a RelUG.1 In this context, § 7a (2) refers to “more than one hour” as the standard amount, provided that the required number of participants is met. RE may be offered in all Austrian schools covered by § 1 (1) RelUG if at least three pupils register, as stated in § 7a (4) RelUG.

The division of competencies is constitutionally guaranteed in Article 14 (10) of the Federal Constitutional Law (B-VG), which requires a two-thirds majority in parliament—with at least half of the members present—for any changes to the legal relationship between the state and the CRSs or to the structure of RE in public schools (including interreligious education offered by CRSs). The constitutional framework for the division of competencies between the state and the CRSs is reinforced by various ordinary laws—above all, the RelUG, which states that RE is to be “provided, managed, and directly supervised” by the CRS (cf. § 2 para. 1 RelUG; §§ 1 and 2 School-Church Act 1868). An additional legal safeguard for the guarantee of direct supervision by the respective CRSs is provided in certain laws governing their external legal relations—for instance, § 6 (1) no. 9 of the Islam Act 2015 and § 5 (4) no. 10 of the Israelite Act 1890. The curricular and pedagogical design of RE is the responsibility of qualified RE teachers and their supervisors, known as RE inspectors (“Fachinspektoren für den Religionsunterricht”), who serve as internal oversight bodies appointed by the CRSs (cf. § 7c para. 1 RelUG). This means that CRSs bear full responsibility for the management and provision of RE. Consequently, pupils who do not belong to a specific CRS are generally not permitted to attend that denominational RE (BMBWF 2023), since RE in Austrian schools is designed exclusively for members of the respective CRS (Potz and Schinkele 2024).

While denominational RE is mandatory for members of a CRS, pupils (or their parents/guardians, for children under 14) may opt out during the first week of school (§ 1 para. 2 RelUG). Additionally, the parental right to religious education is enshrined both in the Federal Act on the Religious Upbringing of Children (Bundesgesetz über die religiöse Kindererziehung 1985) and Article 2 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). According to the Austrian Supreme Court, this right includes

“every formative influence on the child aimed at imparting a religious or ideological orientation, including religious education outside school (e.g., catechism, First Communion, confirmation classes, Quranic instruction) and the practice of religious rituals in daily life […].”

(OGH 22.10.2020, 6 Ob 177/20b)

The option to opt out of RE thus reflects the legislator’s commitment to individual negative religious freedom, in line with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), as in H. & E. Zengin vs. Türkiye (Appl. no. 11448/04) or Folgerø a.o. vs. Norway (Appl. no. 15472/02). Pupils from state registered confessional societies or with no religious affiliation may, subject to the consent of the respective religious teacher, attend any RE class as an optional subject. However, the doctrinal content of RE must not influence the content of other school subjects, as stipulated in § 2 para. 2 of the School-Church Act of 1868 (Grundsätzliche Bestimmungen über das Verhältnis der Schule zur Kirche). The boundary for such content is drawn by the principle of civic education (staatsbürgerliche Erziehung), a legally indeterminate term introduced into the RelUG in 1962 (§ 2 para. 3 RelUG). It marks two substantive limitations for religious teachers: the educational objectives of the Austrian state and the constitutional foundations of the Republic (Adamovich et al. 2011, p. 129). According to the legislator’s understanding—as reflected in the explanatory notes to the 2015 Islam Act—the objectives of civic education are derived from the fundamental principles of the Federal Constitution, the constitutional objectives of the state, the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the StGG 1867, the ECHR, Article 14 para. 5a of the Federal Constitutional Law (B-VG), as well as from the educational mission of Austrian schools pursuant to § 2 of the School Organization Act (Schulorganisationsgesetz, SchOG). These objectives therefore include the principles of democracy, republicanism, federalism, separation of powers, liberalism and the rule of law, general equality before the law, equal treatment of persons with disabilities, gender equality (Article 7 B-VG), and the provision on the official language (Art. 8 B-VG), as outlined in the explanatory notes to the Islam Act 2015 (National Assembly 2015, p. 3).

While the provision and content of RE fall exclusively within the autonomous sphere of the CRSs, the supervision of RE is shared between the CRSs and the state. The term “directly supervised” means that CRS-appointed RE inspectors are responsible for pedagogical and doctrinal oversight. The appointment as RE inspector does not establish an independent employment relationship with the federal or provincial government, nor does it affect any other existing employment relationship (e.g., as an RE teacher) (cf. § 7c para. 1 and 2 RelUG). According to internal administrative regulations in the Circular 20/2023 issued by the Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research (BMBWF), RE inspectors are accountable not only to their respective CRSs but also to the state school authorities. The rights and duties of RE inspectors include, inter alia: participation in the organization of RE groups (BMBWF 2023, p. 14), particularly in assessing their appropriateness from the perspective of RE; involvement in the assignment of RE teachers to schools, as carried out by the respective CRS; supervision of RE, especially with regard to compliance with the curriculum and consistency with the educational objectives of Austrian schools (see above), and direct supervision of RE. State directives apply to them only to the extent that they do not interfere with the CRSs’ religious supervision. According to Circular 20/2023, RE inspectors are required to intervene if they become aware that an RE teacher is conveying content that contradicts the established doctrine and thereby undermines either the approved curriculum or the educational mandate of Austrian schools (BMBWF 2023, p. 7).

School organizational and disciplinary supervision, however, falls exclusively within the competence of the state. § 2 (1) of the RelUG states that school supervisory authorities have the right to supervise RE in terms of school organization and discipline. They may exclude a teacher from teaching duties if deemed necessary to uphold overall school discipline and ensure an orderly instructional process (Potz and Schinkele 2016, p. 214). Timetabling for RE is managed by school principals and reviewed by the RE inspectors “from the standpoint of religious education”. Circular 20/2023 clarifies that the formation of RE groups is to be assessed in terms of organizational feasibility by the school management, which in this regard is bound by the instructions of the competent state education authorities. With respect to the question of whether the grouping is pedagogically appropriate from the perspective of RE, the respective RE inspectorate must be consulted (BMBWF 2023, p. 14).

In the context of the education reform in 2016/17, the Education Directorates Act (Bildungsdirektionen-Einrichtungsgesetz, BD-EG) established a new evidence-based educational governance system: the School Quality Management System (QMS) under § 5 BD-EG. It includes school principals, quality school coordinators, teachers and teaching teams, and regional quality coordinators (BMBWF 2022). The role of School Quality Managers (SQMs) in Austria’s nine federal states includes overseeing pedagogical quality and strategy, supervising regional education teams (§ 19 para. 3 no. 1 BD-EG), and contributing to the improvement of learning conditions and outcomes in accordance with the educational mission of Austrian schools (§§ 1 and 2 para. 3 Decree of the Federal Minister of Education, Science and Research on School Quality Management—SQM-VO). These areas of responsibility overlap with those of RE inspectors, resulting in a paradox: on the one hand, religious education is integrated into the public education system; on the other hand, the state adheres to a principle of secularism, which reserves content-related control exclusively to CRSs. Religious inspectors are therefore not officially part of the QMS, even though they consider themselves as such (Kramer 2024, p. 392).

In summary, the division of responsibilities for RE as a res mixta can be outlined as follows: CRSs are responsible for establishing their own RE offices and supervisory structures (RE -inspectors), developing curricula for all school types and levels, appointing and assigning RE teachers, and producing textbooks and teaching materials. They also participate in the training of RE teachers for elementary schools, which is conducted at University Colleges of Christian Churches of Teacher Education (Kirchliche Pädagogische Hochschulen), in cooperation with the responsible CRSs.2 The state is responsible solely for the organizational and disciplinary supervision of RE and for funding RE inspectors and RE teachers. Building on this delineation of competences, the following section turns to the legal foundations that enable and shape interreligious education within the broader framework of denominational RE in Austria.

4. Legal Points of Reference for Interreligious Education Within the Framework of Religious Education

In light of the existing delineation of responsibilities for denominational RE, it is noteworthy that many interreligious initiatives (Jäggle 2008) have already been implemented in Austria—among them our Graz-based project “Integration through Interreligious Education” (“Christian-Islamic Religious Education in Team Teaching”) and the Vienna-based initiative “Values—Intercultural Learning—Religions (WIR)”, launched in the school year 2019/20 by the Viennese Archdiocesan Office for Schools and Education. Although interreligious education—as an element of holistic religious formation—can enrich denominational RE by fostering openness to political and ideological perspectives of classmates, it has not yet been explicitly codified by the legislature as a formal type of education. This is despite the fact that various curricula at the tertiary, secondary, and primary levels, as well as international treaties, refer to it.

Support for interreligious education is already anchored in international legal instruments. For instance, Article 3 of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism includes the promotion of tolerance to strengthen interreligious and intercultural dialogue as a recommended domestic measure (Federal Law Gazette III No. 34/2010). Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights emphasizes the right to education for the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity, as well as respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, so that everyone may play a constructive role in a free society. In relation to interreligiosity, understood as the encounter and dialogical engagement between adherents of different religious traditions, Austria and the other signatory states to the treaty commit themselves to the principle that

“education shall enable all persons to participate effectively in a free society, promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups, and further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.”

(Federal Law Gazette No. 590/1978)

At the national level, the constitutional significance of interreligious exchange and learning can be inferred from the state objectives concerning education outlined in Article 14 (5a) of the Federal Constitutional Law (B-VG), which states:

“Democracy, humanity, solidarity, peace, and justice—as well as openness and tolerance towards all people—constitute the fundamental values of the Austrian school system. Based on these principles, schools aim to provide the highest possible level of education to the entire population, regardless of origin, social circumstances, or financial background, while continually safeguarding and advancing educational quality. Through a cooperative partnership between students, parents, and teachers, children and adolescents are to be supported in achieving their fullest intellectual, emotional, and physical development, enabling them to grow into healthy, self-confident, happy, committed, responsible, creative, and artistically inclined individuals. These individuals shall be capable of assuming responsibility for themselves, for others, for the environment, and for future generations—guided by social, religious, and moral values. Every young person shall be enabled to form independent judgments and develop social understanding, show openness towards the political, religious, and ideological beliefs of others, and be empowered to participate in the cultural and economic life of Austria, Europe, and the global community, contributing—motivated by a love of freedom and peace—to the common tasks of humanity.”

This constitutional principle is also reflected in similar terms at the statutory level, particularly in the § 2 SchOG. Austrian schools are tasked with contributing to the development of young people’s abilities in accordance with moral, religious, and social values through instruction appropriate to their stage of development and educational path. These provisions reveal the importance of preparing young people to assume responsibility for others and the environment—an aim that necessarily includes religious awareness. The state has entrusted this task primarily to the denominational RE provided by the CRSs, through which pupils are expected to develop intellectually—and, depending on the religious tradition, also spiritually—by engaging with religious, societal, and political topics.

Interreligious elements emerge naturally from a cooperative commitment to partnership-based collaboration (partnerschaftliches Zusammenwirken), grounded in open, tolerant, and just engagement with those of different beliefs. Within the framework of RE, stakeholders are thus called upon to promote interreligious encounters among pupils of different religious backgrounds and to facilitate learning about religious practices, beliefs, and traditions. A concrete example is our project in Graz, which promotes interreligious teaching and learning through coordinated efforts involving pupils, parents, religious teachers, school leadership, and CRS-appointed inspectors or education officers. The pedagogical importance of interreligious initiatives is also reflected in various laws and regulations pertaining to the tertiary education sector as well as in general and religion-specific RE curricula. Relevant legal references can be found in § 3 of the University Curriculum Ordinance 2013 (Hochschul-Curricularverordnung), as well as in the annex to § 30a (1) no. 4 of the Higher Education Quality Assurance Act 2011 (Hochschul-Qualitätssicherungsgesetz). According to the latter, bachelor’s and master’s programs are required to incorporate thematic areas addressing the realities of growing up in a globalized, digitalized, inclusive, multilingual, and heterogeneous society as an integral component of teacher education. They must be designed in a competence-oriented manner and aligned with a clearly defined competence model, such as the development of general and subject-specific pedagogical skills, disciplinary and didactic competencies (particularly in inclusive pedagogy and e-didactics), social skills, diversity competence (including inclusive, intercultural, interreligious, and language-sensitive competencies), competencies in German as a second language, and gender competence.

In line with these aims, several national educational institutions have institutionalized cooperative formats, including the Network for Interreligiosity at the University College of Christian Churches of Teacher Education Vienna/Lower Austria (Kirchiche Pädagogische Hochschule Wien/Niederösterreich), the Center for Interreligious Studies at the University of Innsbruck, and the Institute for Religious Education and Interreligious Dialogue at the Private Pedagogical College Augustinum in Graz (Private Pädagogische Hochschue Augustinum). The religious pedagogical significance of interreligiosity and interculturality is evident in the curricula of compulsory schools and general secondary schools. In the scope of school-based curricular autonomy, full-day schools may offer the subject of Social Learning, which can include the development of interpersonal competence, tolerance, conflict resolution, interreligiosity, etc., as contributions to inclusion, peace education, violence prevention, civic education, and peer mediation.3

The relative absence of the terms interreligious and interreligiosity in general national curricula can be attributed to the principle of secularity, which maintains the institutional separation between state and religious (or ecclesiastical) affairs. Accordingly, interreligious cooperation in celebrations or instructional formats within the framework of social learning falls under the sole competence of CRSs (cf. § 2 RelUG). These CRSs, responsible for the organization and direct supervision of RE, are likewise charged with the development of RE curricula. Such curricula are reviewed by the Ministry of Education to ensure compatibility with civic education objectives before being formally promulgated. A review of CRS-specific curricula reveals multiple references to interreligious aims: Many CRS curricula include the study of world religions, interreligious dialogue, and interreligious learning—especially in the curricula for Buddhist, Protestant, Catholic, Free Church, New Apostolic, Islamic-Alevi, and Islamic RE (of the IGGÖ). Some CRSs, like the Buddhist Religious Society or the Catholic Church, have already incorporated the 14 interreligiously agreed and detailed core competencies in response to educational reform efforts.4

The Buddhist curriculum for primary education promotes an open, tolerant approach to encounters with diverse people, worldviews, and beliefs. It encourages critical reflection and deepening of one’s stance and contributes to interreligious and intercultural learning. Buddhist RE is described as “a lived example of interreligious dialogue” that teaches the foundations of world religions and creates spaces for engaging with the religious and ideological environments of pupils (cf. Federal Law Gazette II No. 241/2008 as amended by Federal Law Gazette II No. 311/2024). The Protestant curriculum similarly emphasizes the creation of interreligious and intercultural learning environments. It encourages pupils to take part in school life by co-organizing celebrations, holidays, and religious services, and—like the Buddhist curriculum—recommends structuring religious education in extended teaching units as a guiding didactic principle. Theologically responsible pedagogical decisions should reflect both denominational foundations and openness to ecumenical and interreligious dialogue (cf. Federal Law Gazette II No. 130/2009 as amended by Federal Law Gazette II No. 395/2019).

The Catholic RE curriculum for primary and many secondary levels promotes “ecumenical, interreligious, and intercultural dialogue” as a core didactic principle. Notably, in the fourth grade of primary school, the competence area “Religious and Ideological Diversity in Society and Culture” requires pupils to engage with different religious ways of life and belief systems, to describe elements of Muslim life and faith, and to relate the three monotheistic religions to each other. The aim is to cultivate attitudes that promote successful interreligious coexistence. Although similar references are largely absent in secondary-level Catholic curricula, interreligious elements are present at the tertiary level, particularly in teacher training institutions for social and early childhood education. For instance, Competence Module 2 (Semester 2) addresses “interreligious and intercultural learning” and “parental engagement in religious education and interreligious encounters” (cf. Federal Law Gazette II No. 571/2003 as amended by Federal Law Gazette II No. 92/2025).

Two smaller CRSs—the Free Churches and the New Apostolic Church—also emphasize interreligious learning in their secondary-level curricula (cf. Federal Law Gazette II No. 194/2014 as amended by Federal Law Gazette II No. 380/2020 and Federal Law Gazette II No. 108/2016). The curricula of the two Islamic institutions, ALEVI and IGGÖ, strongly integrate interreligious education. The ALEVI curriculum for most school types identifies interreligious concerns as a key educational objective, aiming to offer a lived model of interdenominational and interreligious dialogue (cf. Federal Law Gazette II No. 14/2014 as amended by Federal Law Gazette II No. 89/2015). Interreligious and intercultural learning is explicitly listed as a contribution to the broader educational mission of the school. The IGGÖ curricula for Islamic RE at primary, middle, and upper secondary levels include interreligious cooperation in their general didactic principles, especially through interdisciplinary and cross-subject approaches. Religious teachers are encouraged to participate annually in either an interreligious or interdisciplinary project or to initiate and implement such a project in collaboration with colleagues (cf. Federal Law Gazette II No. 234/2011).

These curricular recommendations indicate that the legal framework and many CRSs are fundamentally open to interreligious cooperation, even if only a few curricula make explicit reference to interreligious learning. Whether and how this situation will evolve in the course of ongoing curriculum reforms remains to be seen.

5. Practical Implementation of Interreligious Education Despite the Absence of Specific Legal Provisions

The absence of legal provisions governing interreligious cooperation within the framework of RE did not deter the cooperation partners—the Catholic Church and the Islamic Religious Society in Austria (IGGÖ)—from establishing the necessary conditions for the successful planning, organization, and implementation of interreligious education projects, such as the one described here. However, these arrangements lack legal certainty, and several questions remain unresolved—questions that have so far only been addressed within the bilateral relationship between the state and individual churches and religious societies (CRSc), thereby exposing an unregulated area of educational cooperation.

This gap primarily concerns issues of leadership, administration, and direct supervision—especially in connection with liability—as well as questions of participation and instructional scope. In the absence of statutory provisions specifically addressing interreligious education, despite calls from the Federal Office for Religious Affairs (Kultusamt) to establish explicit regulations for CRS cooperation5, the responsibility for defining the framework for such interreligious initiatives—particularly regarding planning, implementation, and supervision—falls to the respective CRSs themselves. Any interreligious teaching initiative must be clearly defined as part of each participating society’s own denominational RE. This finding corresponds to Graßmann’s analysis, who argues that the existing legal framework (e.g., § 57 SchOG) does in fact recognize the possibility of such cooperations, even though clear regulations concerning organization, supervision and legal certainty remain desirable (Graßmann 2023).

Accordingly, within the scope of the Integration through Interreligious Education project, we obtained explicit approval from both the Catholic Church and the IGGÖ prior to the implementation of the research project in Graz, authorizing the temporary conduct of interreligious education. A formal agreement was signed. In the first agreement, dated 2018, the cooperation partners—the Catholic Church, the IGGÖ, and the project team—jointly agreed on the following five points:

• The selection of four pilot schools where “interreligious teaching units are to be held for a period of three weeks in individual classes as part of denominational RE. The mutual encounter of students during these sessions is intended to foster knowledge of and understanding for the religious convictions of others, and to strengthen dialogical competence.
• The documentation and scientific analysis of the perceptions, experiences, and outcomes of the project by the Institute for Catechetics and Religious Education at the University of Graz, with the goal of integrating these findings into the training of future religious educators.
• The active involvement of school principals, who had been informed and had agreed to participate in implementation.
• The provision of information to parents and legal guardians about the project.
• The arrangement of appropriate alternatives for pupils whose parents declined participation in the interreligious project, either through continued attendance in their respective denominational RE or through supervised study periods.” (Agreements between the school authorities of the Catholic Church and the IGGÖ dated 30 October 2018 and 22 June 2020)

Additional agreements followed, mostly to coordinate schedules for new school sites and define the timing of the interreligious teaching units. The original agreement, developed collaboratively with Catholic and Islamic teachers and educators, provided clarity on key matters of content and avoided potential ambiguities. Specifically, it addressed the following:

• Which CRSs bear responsibility for interreligious education as part of their denominational RE?
• What is the purpose of the joint instruction?
• At which schools does the interreligious education take place, and are school principals informed and supportive?
• When and how often are the joint sessions held?

These agreements thus defined the “who” (responsible actors), the “why” (purpose), the “where” (school locations), and the “when” (time and duration). The “what” (content), “how” (methods), and “with what” (teaching materials) were left intentionally open to grant teachers maximum flexibility in designing their lessons and selecting appropriate pedagogical approaches. For example, at the primary school, pupils explored core concepts of Christianity and Islam, such as Bible and Qur’an, church and mosque, Jesus and Muhammad, while in the upper secondary school, joint sessions addressed contemporary ethical issues like love, marriage, and sexuality (Gmoser et al. 2024a, p. 148).

In practice, such cooperation begins in schools where religious educators from different CRSs have had the opportunity to get to know and appreciate one another. Joint initiatives proposed by interested teachers generally require only the consent of their respective employers (i.e., CRS authorities) and the logistical feasibility of offering RE simultaneously in parallel classrooms. Experience has shown that early consultation with school principals on organizational matters—such as parallel scheduling—is key to the success of such projects. Involving parents and the broader local public also contributes to positive reception. The greatest challenge in interreligious school projects is the coordination of parallel RE periods among the involved CRSs. It is also advisable to inform and educate parents in advance. Even if the RE curricula of the respective denominations already include references to interreligious topics, participation of pupils in time-limited interreligious supplementary education must remain voluntary, in accordance with negative religious freedom, i.e., “freedom from religion” (Potz and Schinkele 2016, p. 54).

To ensure transparency and safeguard the religious freedom of pupils and the parental right to guide their children’s religious upbringing, an informational letter was distributed to all parents. This letter concluded with the following statement:

“If you do not consent to your daughter or son participating in this project—which we would deeply regret—please notify the responsible religious education teacher. The school will arrange for an appropriate alternative lesson.”

(Agreements between the school authorities of the Catholic Church and the IGGÖ dated 30 October 2018 and 22 June 2020)

This phrasing was intended to signal the voluntary nature of participation without overly emphasizing it, since the project team viewed interreligious learning—within the framework of denominational RE—as consistent with the state’s educational goals and with the provisions of the respective RE curricula. Both the Catholic and the Islamic curricula identify interreligious cooperation and interreligious learning as educational objectives. Nevertheless, the project faced structural and political challenges that required careful handling. Concerns were raised by both religious school boards: the Islamic inspectorate was apprehensive about potential reputational risks to the IGGÖ, while the Catholic school authority emphasized legal safeguards and expressed sensitivity to public and political reactions, particularly due to prior criticism from the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ), a right-wing populist party represented in parliament. The latter concerns were partly substantiated by a parliamentary inquiry raised in 2021 (Gmoser et al. 2024a, p. 25). To address them, the project team pursued transparent communication and ensured parental consent through formal information letters. The letter assured parents that a suitable alternative program would be made available for non-participating pupils. In addition, efforts were made to maintain transparency and accessibility to the wider public in order to preempt political or media criticism.

6. Conclusions

The legal framework governing religious education (RE) in Austria provides a constitutionally safeguarded model of power-sharing between the state and churches and religious societies (CRSs). Within this framework, denominational RE operates as a res mixta, grounded in mutual autonomy and cooperation. While the legal architecture robustly supports the provision of denominational education, it does not (yet) explicitly regulate interreligious education as an independent educational format. Nevertheless, the normative openness of both state law and denominational curricula—particularly in relation to civic education, religious freedom, and the educational goals of the Austrian school system—creates space for cooperative interreligious teaching practices.

The example of the project Integration through Interreligious Education project in Graz illustrates how, despite the absence of specific legal provisions, interreligious education can be implemented effectively through clearly defined bilateral agreements between CRSs. These agreements provide pragmatic solutions to challenges concerning leadership, responsibility, liability, and voluntariness, while respecting both the confessional nature of RE and the constitutional rights of pupils and parents. What emerges is a legally possible, pedagogically meaningful, and socially necessary form of interreligious engagement that complements existing structures of RE. By enabling pupils to encounter religious diversity not merely in abstract terms but in dialogical and experiential settings, such interreligious models contribute to the formation of reflective, tolerant, and socially responsible individuals. Moreover, they embody the civic and educational mission of Austrian public schools to foster mutual understanding and peaceful coexistence in an increasingly pluralistic society.

Moving forward, the experiences gained from the diverse interreligious initiatives until today—especially regarding institutional cooperation, curricular integration, and stakeholder involvement—should inform future policy discussions and legislative developments. A more formalized legal framework could provide greater clarity and sustainability for interreligious education, while preserving the autonomy of CRSs and aligning with Austria’s constitutional commitment to religious freedom, educational equity, and democratic pluralism.