MPF defends Psychology resolution that prohibits religious belief

The Federal Public Ministry (MPF) presented to the Federal Supreme Court (STF), this Tuesday (7), a favorable opinion on the rules of the Federal Psychology Council (CEP) aimed at ensuring the exercise of the profession without interference from religious beliefs.

The MPF’s opinion was in response to a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI), presented by the Novo party and the Brazilian Institute of Law and Religion (IBDR), which calls for the suspension of the council’s rules that were published on April 18, this year.

The text of the resolution, questioned by the authors of the action, prohibits the use of the title of psychologist associated with religious aspects and the association of concepts, methods and techniques of psychological science with religious beliefs. It also prohibits professionals from using religion as a form of advertising and propaganda.

According to the authors of the action, the CFP rule violates principles of the Federal Constitution such as the dignity of the human person and freedom of conscience and belief. “A person’s religion cannot be separated from their essence, since their worldview is based on their beliefs”, they highlight in the request.

In the statement, the Attorney General of the Republic, Elizeta Ramos, argues that the ADI should not proceed, as all of the CFP rules on the subject were not challenged in the action. Furthermore, she points out the lack of legitimacy of one of the authors of the ADI: the Brazilian Institute of Law and Religion.

According to the prosecutor, the CFP rules “do not violate human dignity or the psychologist’s fundamental right to freedom of faith and religious belief, as the rules published by the Council have an impact only in the professional sphere, not affecting the private life of the psychologist. psychologist”.

“In other words, the scope of the questioned norms is limited solely to the exercise of the profession, not invading, in any way, the personal life of the psychologist, nor interfering with their right to freedom of religious belief”, highlights Elizeta Ramos in part of the opinion.

For the MPF, “such norms, in compliance with the secular character of the Brazilian State and in the prestige of professional ethics, aim to protect individuals from possible therapeutic treatments devoid of scientific support, from possible religious proselytism or from the undue commodification of faith”. In view of this, Elizeta Ramos opined, on the merits, that the request was unfounded, if the Supreme Court were to judge the merits of the action.