«Oikos,» or the Issue of Education in Spanish Politics

Pope Speech by Pope Leo XIV Before the Spanish Parliament, he reignited the long-standing debate between the naturalist approach and collectivism in the classroom, highlighting the disparities in the regional agreement model.

Since the dawn of Greek philosophy, the concept of the “oikos”—the home or household—has been the fundamental pillar upon which the structure of the “polis” is built and sustained.

Far from being merely a source of emotional support, the family was originally understood as the basic unit of society and the economy. However, interpretations of its role have historically divided thinkers into two opposing schools of thought that still resonate strongly in contemporary political debate.

The Clash of Two Historical Perspectives 

On the one hand, Aristotle advocated a naturalistic view in his work *Politics*, defining the family as the first community created for day-to-day survival, with the union of these communities forming the organic origin of society. A worldview that is firmly aligned with the principles of a democratic society.

On the other hand, in *The Republic*, Plato espoused a utilitarian and collectivist vision, proposing the abolition of the traditional family for rulers and guardians on the grounds that private ties fostered selfishness. His alternative was a communal upbringing managed by the state.

In the view of various analysts, this Platonic perspective foreshadows the logic of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes—such as those in the Marxist sphere—where the individual and his or her family are subordinated to the absolute control of the state apparatus. As a historical counterpoint, it is worth noting the stance of many of the states that suffered Soviet occupation, which today prioritize subsidizing educational projects spearheaded by family groups to bring them to fruition.

The Role of Schools and Subsidiarity 

Common sense dictates that a completely isolated family cannot ensure the full development of its members, limiting their human dignity by confining them to a restrictive environment. There has been a consensus for millennia that the family is the living cell of society, granting parents the fundamental right and inescapable responsibility to raise and educate their children within their loving household.

However, given the complexity of the contemporary world, it is practically impossible for an isolated family to provide a high-quality academic, sociopolitical, and religious education on its own. It is from this reality that the requirement for compulsory schooling through age 16 and the need for educational institutions with different philosophies—all of which respect the Constitution—stem; these institutions are conceived as a support mechanism rather than a substitute for the family.

In this delicate balance, the principle of subsidiarity comes into play; it establishes that matters should be resolved by the nearest and most competent authority before being delegated to higher authorities. This principle operates in two dimensions: 

• Downside: It prohibits higher-level authorities from intervening in the affairs of lower-level authorities if the latter are self-sufficient, thereby curbing stifling centralism.
• Positive aspect: It requires the government to step in and assist lower levels of government when they are overwhelmed by the situation.

When applying this principle to the field of education, the premise is unequivocal: the education of children «belongs» to the family. It is the parents who have the duty and the right to choose their children’s education, provided that the child’s dignity is respected. The state, therefore, should neither indoctrinate nor take the place of parents, but rather provide the necessary assistance when the family’s capacity is overwhelmed.

As Pope Leo said in his aforementioned speech: »The family will always be the first school of humanity »where one learns the basic grammar of living together: embracing life, caring for others, forgiving, serving, and belonging.".

The Regional Divide and the Challenge of Freedom of Choice 

In his historic speech, the Pontiff highlighted public and private institutions as strategic allies of families, noting that the rest of the curriculum should be provided by both types of institutions, each with its own guiding principles. This collaboration requires strict respect for the “primary and inalienable right” of parents to choose the type of education consistent with their convictions—a right protected internationally by Article 18.4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (December 19, 1966, and ratified by Spain in 1977).

Despite this legal framework, the reality on the ground in Spain reveals profound disparities. Currently, there are Autonomous Communities where parents cannot effectively exercise this freedom due to financial barriers. Since there are no state-subsidized schools aligned with their values in their cities, families are forced to turn to private education, turning a fundamental right into a privilege that must be paid for; or else to settle for options they are not comfortable with. 

The standing ovation lasting more than seven minutes that the members of Congress gave the Pontiff on the floor of the legislature leaves a bittersweet taste. Although it is likely that much of the applause did not reflect support for the substance of this position on educational freedom, this political gesture offers a glimmer of hope that legislative bodies will take the Pontiff’s words as an invitation to dialogue, setting aside disparaging remarks so that agreements can be reached for the common good—such as the effective protection of families’ sovereignty in the realm of education.