## Facts

- A 1985 statute ratified an agreement with the Holy See and regulated Catholic religious instruction in public schools, stating it would be provided in conformity with a student’s or parents’ choice and without discrimination.
- In practice, some schools treated Catholic instruction as part of the ordinary curriculum and required students (or parents) to state whether they would attend.
- For students who declined, some schools required attendance at alternative activities, creating an “alternative obligation.”
- In civil litigation brought by parents/students against the Ministry of Public Education, a Florence magistrate referred a constitutional question challenging the statutory and protocol provisions governing Catholic instruction.
- The State, through the Council of Ministers’ representation, raised threshold objections arguing the claim was inadmissible and concerned contingent administrative organization rather than the legal framework.

## Issues

1. Whether the challenged provisions violated constitutional guarantees of equality and freedom of religion by permitting Catholic instruction to function as an ordinary curricular component while burdening non-participants with a compulsory alternative.
2. Whether concordat-based provisions could be reviewed and limited when alleged to conflict with the supreme principles of the constitutional order, including state secularism.
3. Whether the legal framework must be interpreted to recognize a subjective right to choose whether to attend Catholic instruction, with protection against discrimination.

## Decision

- The court rejected the State’s admissibility objections, concluding the dispute concerned enforceable individual rights and a legally relevant constitutional question.
- The court held the constitutional challenge was unfounded, but only under an interpretive construction of the provisions.
- Under that construction, Catholic instruction is optional, and the decision not to attend results in a “state of non-obligation.”
- The court stated that imposing a mandatory alternative subject or activity because of non-attendance would be discriminatory and incompatible with constitutional religious freedom and equality.

## Legal Principles

- Concordat-related norms may be subject to constitutional review when alleged to conflict with the “supreme principles” of the constitutional order.
- State secularism is a supreme constitutional principle understood as the State’s guarantee of religious freedom in a pluralistic setting, not state indifference toward religion.
- The framework for Catholic instruction in public schools must be read to create a subjective right for parents (and older students) to choose whether to attend.
- The choice to decline Catholic instruction may not trigger any form of discrimination; specifically, the State may not condition negative religious freedom on accepting a compulsory substitute activity.
- Only a positive choice to attend Catholic instruction may generate an obligation to participate; non-participation must not produce a legally imposed alternative duty.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the legality of Catholic religious instruction in public schools on the condition that participation rests on a protected right of choice and that students who decline are not required to undertake compulsory alternative activities, consistent with equality, religious freedom, and state secularism.


Moroni v. Ministry of Public Education (Catholic Instruction Case), Judgment No. 203 (It. Const. Ct. 1989)