Fight in the STF over rule that prevents psychologists from talking about religion

The STF (Supreme Federal Court) may soon judge a case with important repercussions for religious freedom. The court will decide whether the CFP (Federal Council of Psychology) can prohibit professionals in the field from using religious principles in their services.

At stake is a resolution published by the CFP in April this year. The rule prohibits “using the title of psychologist or psychologist associated with religious aspects” and “associating concepts, methods and techniques of psychological science with religious beliefs”. In practice, the consequence is that no professional can present themselves as a psychologist of a specific religion, nor can they incorporate religious principles into their care.

When justifying the measure, the CFP stated that professionals need to respect the “secular” character of the State — although the separation between State and church has no effect on the private sector. It would be like preventing private hospitals and schools from having religious affiliation.

The Partido Novo and the IBDR (Brazilian Institute of Law and Religion) contested part of the resolution, in an action filed with the STF on August 4 of this year. The two entities presented an ADI (Direct Action of Unconstitutionality) against items V to IX of article 3 of the resolution. The Supreme Court agreed to analyze the case and has already asked the CFP to comment.

Weeks later, the PDT, in reaction to the Novo request, filed another ADI to ask for exactly the opposite, that the STF confirm the prohibition of psychologists from expressing their religious beliefs.

Violation of religious freedom

In the petition, IBDR and Novo state that the resolution goes beyond the legal powers of the CFP and violates religious freedom. The authors argue that the CFP rule is based on “a false idea of ​​religious neutrality.”

Thiago Vieira, director of IBDR and one of the authors of the action, says that the veto imposed by the CFP is unreasonable. “The CFP wants psychologists to refrain from publicly expressing their religion, even if it is an inseparable part of their identity. This is notable as several other professions, such as magistrates, have religious associations,” he says.

Vieira explains that the secularity of the State, in the Federal Constitution, cannot be used to remove religion from the public sphere. “The State must create the minimum conditions so that religious people can exercise their faith without obstacles, and must guarantee that people can exercise their faith in any place, whether public or private,” he says.

When presenting its position in the case pending before the STF, the CFP defended the contested norms and argued that “the exercise of the profession of psychologist (…) from a secular perspective” is “a professional duty”.

Despite the CFP’s speech in defense of a “secular” vision, one of the items in the resolution states that psychologists cannot legitimize “practices of intolerance and religious racism” against “African, indigenous and traditional communities” — which gives the understand that discrimination against other religious groups is not prohibited.

“Gay cure” is mentioned by the PDT, but is not the theme of the New

Some pro-LGBT groups have described the action of Novo and IBDR as an attempt to favor therapies that seek to change patients’ sexual orientation — pejoratively called “gay cure”. This is one of the arguments presented by the PDT.

The issue gained more visibility after the death of Karol Eller, known for her activism in favor of then-president Jair Bolsonaro. Karol took her own life on the 9th. She, who identified as a lesbian, had converted to Christianity and had been saying that she was looking for a husband to start a family.

But the PDT’s argument is unfounded. Firstly, the action in the STF has nothing to do with gay healing. “None of the contested sections have any relationship with sexuality or sexual orientation”, explains Thiago Vieira.

Secondly, the case of Karol Eller cannot be cited as an example that justifies the resolution, since the relationship between change in sexual orientation and suicide is uncertain and little studied.

Although some research indicates that conversion therapy has negative effects on mental health, the evidence is inconclusive because methodological problems call these studies into question. In a scientific article published in 2022, professor Christopher H. Rosik, from Fresno Pacific University, in the United States, demonstrated that the majority of these studies recruit participants with the help of pro-LGBT entities.

“This oversight is often a result of an ideological monoculture, in which researchers understandably utilize the LGBT ally networks, facilities, and organizations easily accessible to them,” he writes. Rosik. In other words: the population included in these studies is not representative of the universe of people who are trying to change or have already changed their sexual orientation.