In light of a recent Supreme Court decision, Fr. James Martin took to X, advocating for a ban on what’s referred to as “conversion therapy.” He argues that this is not an act of compassion but rather censorship masked as moral high ground. As a Catholic priest, he ought to understand the complexity of such discussions. When a young person seeks guidance on living chastely, dismissing their concerns as unrealistic or, worse, illegal feels inherently cruel.
The case in point—Chiles vs. Salazar—poses a larger question: Is it really about forcing change? It’s, in fact, about the freedom of choice for young individuals, their families, and counselors. Conversations surrounding faith, identity, and healing are at the heart of this matter.
Fr. Martin dismisses the notion that one’s sexual identity might be something other than fixed at birth. He suggests we must accept individuals as they are, citing teachings on respect, compassion, and sensitivity from the Catechism. However, this perspective overlooks significant research, such as a large genome study from 2019 that concluded there is no “gay gene.” Instead, genetic factors in self-identifying as “gay” are akin to those behind various complex behaviors, like alcoholism.
Earlier twin studies already questioned the idea of being “born this way” by showing that if this were true, identical twins would consistently share the same orientation—yet the actual concordance rate hovers around 30%. The American Psychological Association has noted the absence of a scientific consensus regarding why individuals identify as heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian. Factors such as genetics, hormones, and societal influences may all play interconnected roles.
Critics of “conversion therapy” often assert that it doesn’t work, but that assertion is, perhaps, overly simplistic. It overlooks many personal stories of individuals who have found peace and fulfillment through various counseling approaches. Bad science—supported by selective findings—informs many current narratives.
The Ruth Institute’s findings suggest that talk therapy, particularly when it comes to unwanted same-sex attraction, has benefited various individuals. To argue otherwise, based on flawed studies, is misleading. The context of existing mental health struggles often skews the interpretation of counseling outcomes, while conflating prior distress with subsequent counseling effectiveness.
There’s a notable risk in claiming that no evidence exists for the effectiveness of such therapies. Many have shared their journeys of overcoming unwanted same-sex attraction, which stands against the blanket claims that change isn’t possible. These narratives are often silenced, raising questions about freedom of expression in discussing faith and personal healing.
Fr. Martin contends that “doing harm” doesn’t align with Christian values—and many would agree. Yet, isn’t it equally harmful to deny someone the opportunity to live in accordance with their faith? From what I gather, friends who’ve traversed these challenges find invaluable support from community members who genuinely walk alongside them.
Christian love, often intertwined with the pursuit of truth, has places where it might feel unpopular or challenging. The current Supreme Court deliberation revolves around the extent to which the state can dictate what can be discussed in private counseling sessions. It’s a matter that emphasizes the need to uphold freedom of speech and religion, values worth defending by all, including clergy.
To those sharing Fr. Martin’s viewpoint, perhaps it’s worth revisiting both the Gospel and scientific insights. Christ never discouraged the pursuit of truth—because truth is what liberates.
