A Catholic priest in Spain could face prison time over statements the government has deemed unacceptable—but many are asking who really gets to define “hate", as Christian Daily reports.

Rev. Custodio Ballester, a Barcelona-based priest and former special forces soldier, has been found guilty under Spain’s hate-speech laws for remarks made about Islam during a 2017 interview and in previous writings, igniting national debate on freedom of expression and religious discourse.

The ruling—issued October 1 by the Provincial Court of Málaga—has touched a raw nerve in Spain, where delicate lines between offensive speech and ideological dissent are rapidly being redrawn by a legal code critics say is increasingly weaponized against Christianity.

Cleric’s Words Spark Legal Firestorm

Ballester’s comments, made both in an online broadcast and a 2016 article, centered on his personal concerns about Christian-Muslim dialogue. Responding to a message of interfaith outreach from Cardinal Juan José Omella, Ballester wrote that dialogue with Islam was, in his words, “impossible.”

In his article titled “The Impossible Dialogue with Islam,” he argued that Islam does not allow alternative viewpoints and described the alleged persecution of Christians in Nigeria, Syria, and Bangladesh. These views—expressed forcefully but within a religious context—were enough to spark a legal complaint.

The complaint was filed by the Association of Spanish Muslims Against Islamophobia, leading to the priest’s prosecution under Article 510 of Spain’s Penal Code. Originally passed in 1995 and revised in 2015 to cover online content, the law criminalizes public speech that incites hatred or discrimination.

Spain’s Article 510: A New Thought Police?

While ostensibly created to address genuine hate crimes, Article 510 has become a catch-all tool for progressive enforcers, many say. The charges in this case stem from statements that were theological and geopolitical, not incitements to violence.

Ballester has not denied making the statements, but firmly rejects the idea that they were motivated by hate. “The survival of freedom of expression in today’s Spain depends on the ruling in this case,” the priest told Catholic News Agency.

He continued, “Otherwise, we’ll head toward a new Cuban dictatorship—one where you arrest people for what you said as well as for what you thought, if it differed from what Fidel Castro decided.”

Prosecutors Push for Prison Time

The prosecutor is calling for a three-year prison sentence, a move that has outraged religious liberty advocates and sparked nearly 30,000 signatures in protest. The petition was circulated by Abogados Cristianos, or Christian Attorneys, who argue that this case reveals a double standard in Spanish law.

In their campaign demanding the case be dropped, the group stated, “They will never censor the criticism, disrespect, or continuous offenses that are broadcast from the television sets towards Catholics.” Their message is simple: if we’re protecting religion, protect all of them.

Abogados Cristianos also argue that the selective enforcement of hate speech laws emboldens ideological control rather than discouraging real hatred. “If we tolerate that this injustice is committed with Father Custos, we will be setting a fatal precedent,” their statement reads.

More Than One Voice on Trial

Ballester was not alone on the night of the controversial broadcast. Two other individuals—Rev. Jesús Calvo and journalist Armando Robles are also facing charges for comments made during the same episode of the talk show “La Ratonera.”

This drags into the spotlight the growing legal peril faced not only by radical agitators but by public figures who express unpopular religious or political views—even in a peaceful, theological context. Dissent can now land you in criminal court, it seems.

While free speech is supposed to protect offensive speech, the current trend in Spain increasingly punishes views that clash with the prevailing progressive narrative. That shouldn’t be mistaken for justice—it’s just censorship with a law degree.

Awaiting Sentencing, Preparing for Battle

Ballester remains calm in the face of the ruling and says he’s mentally prepared for a negative judgment. "In the Spanish army’s special forces, we said, ‘Prepare for the worst. The easy stuff has already been planned for.’ That’s why I’m calm,” he said outside the court.

Ballester has confirmed that, if the conviction stands, he plans to take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights. That anyone should have to go that far for the freedom to speak reflects how flawed the current legal regime has become.

In the end, this case is about more than one man. It’s about the direction Spain—and many Western countries—are heading when it comes to balancing speech, faith, and personal conscience.