Supreme Court rules against Colorado ban on 'conversion therapy' for LGBTQ+ kids
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against a law banning "conversion therapy" for LGBTQ+ kids in Colorado, one of about two dozen states that ban the discredited practice.,The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against a law banning "conversion therapy" for LGBTQ+ kids in Colorado, one of about two dozen states that ban the discredited practice.
about 5 hours ago
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ minors.1
This decision strikes down the state law prohibiting licensed professionals from offering such therapies.
Colorado enacted the ban to protect minors from practices aimed at changing sexual orientation or gender identity.1
The ruling highlights ongoing legal tensions between state protections and First Amendment rights.
The decision may influence similar bans in other states.1
It reaffirms providers' rights to offer therapies despite criticism from LGBTQ+ advocates.
How does the Catholic Church view the morality of conversion therapy?
The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual inclinations, while objectively disordered, are not sinful in themselves if not freely chosen, and persons experiencing them must be treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. They are called to chastity and to unite their difficulties to Christ's Cross. Homosexual acts remain intrinsically disordered and contrary to natural law. This framework informs the Church's approach to any therapeutic interventions, including what is termed "conversion therapy" (efforts to reorient sexual attractions toward heterosexuality).
Scholarly analysis grounded in Catholic philosophy affirms that homosexual orientation is not necessarily immutable or intrinsic to personal identity. Psychological research, including studies by Robert Spitzer (a former advocate for depathologizing homosexuality), demonstrates that therapy—such as reparative, conversion, or reorientation therapy—can modify attractions, enabling many to achieve a satisfactory heterosexual lifestyle. Spitzer's 2003 study of 200 participants found shifts from predominantly homosexual to predominantly heterosexual orientations post-therapy, leading him to oppose bans on such efforts. Confirming studies include those by Elan Karten, Stanton Jones, and Mark Yarhouse, which contradict claims that orientation is unchangeable or that change attempts cause harm.
The American Psychological Association has acknowledged no single genetic cause for homosexuality and affirmed clients' right to self-determination, implicitly supporting therapeutic options for those seeking change. These findings align with a Thomistic view of the body ordered to heterosexual marriage, where disordered inclinations can be addressed.
Magisterial documents explicitly endorse therapy for homosexuality, particularly when acts have not become habitual:
"Especially when the practice of homosexual acts has not become a habit, many cases can benefit from appropriate therapy."
Parents observing such tendencies in children are urged to seek qualified expert help. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) encourages bishops to support pastoral care incorporating "the assistance of the psychological, sociological and medical sciences, in full accord with the teaching of the Church." This includes programs avoiding near occasions of sin while providing sacraments, prayer, and counsel.
No magisterial text condemns conversion therapy; rather, it is framed as potentially beneficial within holistic care promoting chastity.
Programs for those with same-sex attractions require "competent oversight" to uphold Church teaching on chastity, marriage (e.g., Humanae Vitae), and the intrinsic disorder of homosexual acts, avoiding false compassion that compromises doctrine. Therapy must not invoke evil powers or exploit credulity, per the Catechism. Pastoral efforts should integrate spiritual growth, not isolate individuals or delude them about sin.
While somatic gene therapy for genetic defects is theoretically permissible if limited to the individual, germ-line alterations raise eugenics concerns. No sources apply gene therapy to orientation change, focusing instead on psychological means.
The Church distinguishes inclination (a trial, not per se sinful) from acts (gravely immoral). Therapy targets the former only insofar as it aids chastity, not as a moral obligation. Divergent secular views (e.g., APA's mixed stance) contrast with Catholic anthropology, rejecting reduction of persons to orientation. Recent documents reaffirm this balance, urging science-aligned care without endorsing harm.
In summary, the Catholic Church views morally appropriate conversion therapy as permissible and potentially beneficial, especially via psychological means, when integrated with pastoral care faithful to chastity and human dignity. It opposes any approach contradicting doctrine or causing harm, prioritizing holistic support over reorientation alone.