Using a bit more legit of a dictionary, in my case Oxford, you'll see abuse used referring to a person as "Treat (a person or an animal) with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly". "Abuse" simply doesn't describe a school failing students that do not attend mandatory parts of a curriculum they signed up for. This one can't be escaped with linguistic technicalities. Honey, what a mess. You literally just "escaped" this one with linguistic technicalities, proclaiming your definition was better than mine and using this judgment to invalidate everything I said. I don't even know what to reply... I guess I'll just stick to my guns and say that, by the definition I quoted, abuse necessarily occurred.
Re-read your definition of propaganda. The university is not attempting to convince anyone of anything - it welcomes voluntary matriculants who already believe a certain way. Apparently it welcomes just anyone; see OP. It is also very possible to meditate on lessons in the bible without bringing any falsehood or exaggeration into the picture. And many times the teachings are unrelated to conversion or spreading faith. So, it's untenable to call the class propaganda without knowing the contents of the lessons. If a group of students is told a biblical parable highlighting the morality of consideration for the less fortunate, they have not been exposed to propaganda any more than if they were reading such a parable in philosophic texts. It is possible. I did admit that. In practice however, in religious settings, it never happens.
The Christian leaders -see the second Vatican council, for example- have proclaimed numerous times that the Holy Bible is entirely truthful in its every detail (barring translation inadequacies, mannerisms of the writer, etc). Therefore, any mention of God, Jesus Christ as his avatar, the Virgin Mother, or any of the thousands of factual impossibilities present in the Bible as being truthful is automatically propaganda. I have attended probably a hundred+ religious meetings in my life, and these inaccuracies were systematically present to a degree or another. (In this context I think it is safe and in good faith to assume spreading faith is a goal. Religious organizations are political entities whose main way to gain power is to gain followers. It's literally their #1 goal at all times.)
Philosophy students presented with a Biblical parable would be analyzing the passage for its philosophical worth, not its historical or factual accuracy (no philosophy student believes Plato's cave or Lafontaine's animal race to have existed/occurred). Religion CAN be studied objectively. Just not in this case.
Education is not "by definition" irreconcilable with religious coursework. Even your cherrypicked definition of education fails to disagree here; you can acquire knowledge, develop reasoning and mature intellectually through religious coursework. Convenient that I didn't claim that, then, uh? Religious coursework can potentially be educational. I did state THAT. Might want to reread my last post.
Think about how your reasoning would apply to general education requirements. If I'm a diehard utilitarian and I'm required to take a Phil 101 class that has us study Kant, am I being abused and force fed propaganda counter to my ideals by my university? Please. I'm sympathetic to views of religion as often being negative, but again, it's nonsense to say a voluntarily chosen curriculum including religious study is abusive propaganda.
Utilitarianism is a philosophy. Kant is a philosopher. How can I be "wrong" or "right" by stating that happiness of the greatest number should come before happiness of the self? It is a moral judgement. There's a difference with religion, which contains philosophy but is not a philosophy, and therefore can be false.
That being said, the situation you describe could potentially be described as propaganda, if Kant was presented at the expense of every other philosopher and proclaimed as the only viable way of thinking (because that is obviously false/exaggerated).