THE European Court of Human Rights has just handed down a verdict (PDF) which some people have hailed as a victory for "religious freedom". Actually it would be more accurate to describe the decision as a victory for the freedom of religious organisations—as opposed to that of individuals making religious or ethical choices. And the outcome will be disturbing to many people, even including some who broadly agree that religions should be able to determine their own doctrines, rules and even disciplinary procedures without interference from the state. To cut a long story short, a Spanish priest and pedagogue who married and had a family has lost a long battle to get some legal redress for the fact that he was effectively dismissed, at the behest of the Catholic church, from his job teaching Catholicism and ethics in a state school. José Antonio Fernández Martínez (pictured on the right) is now 77. He was ordained in 1961, and after 23 years of serving as an unmarried priest he asked to be released from his vows of celibacy. The following year, he married in a civil ceremony and proceeded to have five children. That in itself did not seem to create too much of a scandal; it did not prevent him being hired as a religion instructor in a state school, with church approval, seven years after his wedding.

But tension mounted in 1996, when he was photographed, along with his family, attending a meeting of a group called the Movement for Optional Celibacy; a press article quoted the groups as expressing relatively liberal views on issues like contraception and abortion. The following year, the Vatican formally and pointedly released him both from celibacy and the "clerical state" and effectively barred him from teaching unless the local bishop decided otherwise. A month later, Mr Fernández Martínez was informed by the bishop that his annual teaching contract would not be renewed. As Marco Ventura, a law-and-religion pundit, wrote in the Italian dailyCorriere della Sera, the decision had serious personal consequences for the long-suffering pedagogue. He was left out of work; only after two years did he get a job as a museum attendant to tide him over until retirement four years later.

By a razor-thin majority—nine votes to eight—the Court rejected the plaintiff's contention that he has suffered a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which lays down that "everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life..." The majority also declined to examine in detail possible violations under other articles. In a line of argument that is often used by religious conservatives, the majority maintained that people who serve the church are submitting to a kind of "enhanced loyalty" to that institution's rules, to which the state has no business in interference.

However, the eight dissenting judges also came up with some trenchant arguments. They noted that the teacher was, in effect, disciplined by the church not precisely because he got married, but because of a press article which quoted a movement to which he belonged, and drew attention to his personal situation. In the dissenters' view, the state also had responsibilities which it could not evade, even though it had sub-contracted the job of vetting religion teachers to the church. So they did think that the plaintiff's right to a "private and family life" had been infringed.

If this is a victory for "religious freedom" it is surely a Pyrrhic victory. The principle of "religious autonomy"—in other words the idea that freely constituted groups and sub-cultures can live by their own beliefs and rules—is widely accepted, even in the most secular of societies, as long as those groups and sub-cultures are appropriately modest in their dealings with others, and as long as membership is indeed voluntary. But in this case, we are dealing with an institution—the Spanish Catholic church—which historically has enjoyed enormous power. And the church still wields quite a lot of power even in matters such as the selection of teachers, which in many people's view should be a function of the state. To many people, the church's behaviour in this case will seem like bullying, which will leave some puzzled by the European judges' endorsement of that behaviour.