U.S. Bishops’ Conference and Lay Catholics On Opposite Sides of Conversion Therapy Case

U.S. Supreme Court

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has endorsed the right of mental health professionals to provide conversion therapy to LGBTQ+ people in the run-up to a high-profile U.S. Supreme Court case on the practice. Other Christian groups, among them a group of lay Catholics, and a group of Catholic educators, have filed amicus briefs against conversion therapy. 

The case, Chiles vs. Salazar, questions the constitutionality of a 2019 Colorado state ban on conversion therapy, a mostly debunked intervention by some mental health professionals which purports to change LGBTQ+ people’s identities to heterosexual and cisgender states.  As part of the state’s much broader Mental Health Practice Act (MCTL), the conversion therapy provision forbids only the “practice or treatment by a licensee, registrant or certificate holder that attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity” and only applies to clients under the age of 18. Religious forms of conversion therapy are not banned by the law.

In 2022, Kaley Chiles, a Christian therapist, sued the state of Colorado over the law arguing that it violated her first amendment right to free speech. Supporters of the ban, including a large number of medical and mental health professional associations, have shown that such therapy often causes major depression, anxiety, confusion, and has led to suicide. Among the groups who oppose conversion therapy are the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the National Association for Children’s Behavioral Health, the National Coalition for Mental Health Recovery, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and dozens more.

Both the local district and appeals courts ruled in the state’s favor in the lawsuit. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case focusing on  the question: “Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.” Oral arguments are scheduled for Oct. 7, reported a columnist for the National Catholic Reporter (NCR). 

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, along with the Colorado Catholic Conference and The Catholic University of America, filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that questions of sexuality and human conduct are eternal and significant concerns about which people have the right to inquire freely and to seek “counsel from a trusted advisor to discern right from wrong in confusing or complex situations”. The bishops’ submission does only cites Catholic Church documents, and does not address the efficacy or impact of conversion therapy. 

Another amicus brief, in favor of the defense, was filed by a cohort of ecumenical religious organizations including New Ways Ministry and DignityUSA. Entitled “Brief amici curiae of Religious Organizations”, the brief argues that Colorado’s law is generally applicable and does not target religious exercise. Furthermore, it was designed to regulate professional practice and protect minors from demonstrably “sub-standard” and harmful care. Although the question before the court is one of free speech and not free exercise of religion, opponents of Colorado’s law have characterized it as targeting religious practice, and the religious organizations’ brief largely focuses on disproving such claims, noting that the MCTL explicitly exempts those practicing religious ministry. 

Another brief, entitled “Brief of 27+ Lay Roman Catholics in Support of Respondents” primarily employs moral and religious arguments against conversion therapy, citing its deleterious effects on those who undergo it. The brief was filed by Attorney James Riley, who submitted a more extensive brief in support of LGBTQ+ equality in the 2022 Supreme Court case “303 Creative.”

A group of life-long Catholic educators and school administrators also submitted a brief in favor of the MCTL. Entitled “Brief amici curiae of David Palmieri, et al.”, the brief consists of personal statements followed by several legal arguments that the MCTL does not violate free speech:

“The speech-based therapy it regulates is not ordinary conversation: it is the delivery of treatment because it purports to achieve clinical outcomes. This Court has long allowed regulation of professional treatment that incidentally involves speech…

“Colorado’s law is narrowly tailored. It prohibits only efforts to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity by a licensed therapist; it does not bar supportive, exploratory, or faith-based counseling…

“It expressly excludes providing ‘support . . . for the facilitation of . . . identity exploration and development’ from its definition of conversion therapy. Thus, the law allows the kind of work amici do every day: guiding students as they wrestle with questions of faith, identity, and behavior, listening without judgment, and helping them discern a path forward consistent with their values.”

(David Palmieri is the founder of Without Exception, a network of Catholic educators who support LGBTQ+ students.  He has contributed a number of posts to Bondings 2.0, most recently about the fatal shooting at a Minneapolis Catholic school.)

Palmieri, et al’s distinction between professional conduct which incidentally involves speech and normal speech on matters of opinion counters the US bishops’ conference argument that the MCTL infringes on the rights of people to seek out viewpoints on human sexuality. 

In an NCR column decrying the position of the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference (USCCB), Attorney Chris Damian, who holds  a Juris Doctor and a master’s degree in Catholic studies from the University of St. Thomas and a bachelor’s degree in philosophy from the University of Notre Dame, wrote powerfully and personally: