The EWTN News portal reports on a case that, while presented under the guise of “religious liberty” litigation, reveals the full spiritual bankruptcy of the post-conciliar accommodation to the sexual revolution. Frank Canepa, a Catholic counselor in Oregon, was fined $89,636 by the state licensing board for the “crime” of refusing to personally affirm a client’s same-sex relationship during a therapy session. According to the article, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed an appeal citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s March 31, 2026 Chiles v. Salazar decision, which ruled 8-1 that Colorado’s “conversion therapy” ban constituted unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. The article quotes ADF attorney Jonathan Scruggs: “The government can’t target counselors for their views and can’t force people to say things that go against their core convictions.” Terry Braciszewski, president-elect of the Catholic Psychotherapy Association, which filed an amicus brief in the Chiles case, stated: “Canepa is not cited for being malicious or non-therapeutic but rather for refraining from abandoning his beliefs … he was being ethical and moral in adhering to his therapeutic approach and care for the person.” The article frames this as a First Amendment free speech issue and celebrates the Supreme Court’s intervention as restoring “First Amendment sanity.” This entire framing, however, exposes the catastrophic failure of the post-conciliar Church to proclaim the full truth about the intrinsic disorder of sodomy and the mortal sin it constitutes, reducing the faith to a matter of private “convictions” and constitutional litigation rather than divine law.
The Reduction of Sodomy to a Protected “Viewpoint”
The article’s entire architecture rests on a foundational lie: that the Catholic teaching on homosexuality is merely one “viewpoint” among many, equivalent to a political opinion or aesthetic preference. This is the language of religious indifferentism, the very error condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors (1864): “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true” (Proposition 15), and “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation” (Proposition 16). The article never once quotes the immutable Catholic teaching on the nature of sodomy. The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches that sins against nature are among the four sins that “cry out to Heaven for vengeance.” The Roman Catechism explicitly names sodomy as a sin that is “intrinsically disordered” and “contrary to natural law” (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2359 §2, and the authentic pre-conciliar magisterium). The article’s silence on this point is not accidental; it is the silence of apostasy.
Instead, the article employs the language of secular liberalism: “personal views,” “core convictions,” “values,” “authenticity,” and “transparency.” These are the categories of the world, not of the Church. As Pope Pius XI proclaimed in Quas Primas (1925): “Christ possesses dominion over all creatures, not by force but by essence and nature” — that is, through the hypostatic union, Christ has authority over all creatures, including human sexuality. The article’s framing implicitly denies Christ’s kingship over the sexual order, reducing what is a matter of divine law to a question of constitutional jurisprudence. This is precisely the “secularism of our times, so-called laicism, its errors and wicked endeavors” that Pius XI identified as “the plague that poisons human society” in Quas Primas.
The Heresy of Religious Liberty as Applied to Sodomites
The article celebrates the U.S. Supreme Court’s Chiles v. Salazar decision as a victory for “First Amendment sanity.” But from the perspective of integral Catholic faith, the First Amendment itself is a document born of the Masonic Enlightenment, a product of the same revolution that sought to dethrone Christ the King. Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei (1885) condemned the liberal principle that “the State should be without God; that in the various forms of religion there is no reason why one should have precedence of another; and that they are all to occupy the same place.” The Syllabus of Errors explicitly condemned Proposition 77: “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.” And Proposition 80: “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.”
The article’s celebration of a secular court’s protection of a Catholic counselor’s “right” to hold his beliefs without being forced to affirm sodomy is a grotesque inversion of the proper order. The question is not whether Canepa has a “right” under the U.S. Constitution to hold his beliefs; the question is whether the state has any authority whatsoever to license counselors in the first place, and whether the Church has abdicated her duty to teach that sodomy is a mortal sin that sends souls to Hell. The article never asks whether the Oregon Board of Licensed Professional Counselors and Therapists has any legitimate authority to exist, or whether the entire apparatus of state-licensed counseling is a usurpation of the Church’s pastoral authority. This is the error of laicism — the belief that the state is the primary arbiter of public morality, rather than the Church.
The Post-Conciliar Accommodation to the Sexual Revolution
The article’s framing reveals the depth of the post-conciliar capitulation to the sexual revolution. By presenting Canepa’s case as a “religious liberty” issue rather than a matter of divine law, the article implicitly accepts the premise that the state has the authority to regulate speech in counseling sessions — it merely disagrees with the specific regulation. This is the logic of Dignitatis Humanae, the conciliar declaration on religious freedom, which Pope Pius IX condemned in advance when he rejected the proposition that “the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism” (Proposition 79, Syllabus of Errors).
The article quotes Terry Braciszewski of the Catholic Psychotherapy Association: “These personal therapeutic qualities likely contributed to why the client continued seeing Canepa for two and a half years.” This is the language of the world — “therapeutic qualities,” “care for the person,” “authenticity.” Where is the language of sin, of repentance, of the salvation of souls? Where is the teaching of St. Paul: “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind… shall possess the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10)? The article’s silence on this point is deafening. It is the silence of a Church that has abandoned her prophetic mission in exchange for a seat at the table of secular respectability.
The Illusion of “First Amendment Sanity”
ADF attorney Jonathan Scruggs is quoted as saying: “Now, Oregon needs to learn the same First Amendment lesson. We are urging the Oregon appellate court to overturn the board’s unlawful demand, restore First Amendment sanity, and halt the state’s attempt to weaponize its licensure system.” This statement reveals the tragic illusion of those who seek to defend the faith using the tools of a system designed to destroy it. The First Amendment was crafted by Freemasons and deists who explicitly rejected the public reign of Christ the King. To invoke it as the ultimate defense of Catholic truth is to build one’s house on sand.
Pius XI in Quas Primas taught: “The state must leave the same freedom to the members of Orders and Congregations, both male and female, who are indeed the most valiant helpers of the Pastors of the Church and contribute most to the expansion and establishment of Christ’s Kingdom.” The proper response to Oregon’s tyranny is not to appeal to the First Amendment but to proclaim that Christ is King, that His law is supreme, and that the state has no authority to compel anyone to affirm what God condemns. The article’s failure to make this proclamation is a failure of nerve, a failure of faith, and a failure of the post-conciliar Church to be the Church.
The Mortal Danger of Silence on Sin
The gravest omission in this article is its complete silence on the spiritual state of the client. The article describes a woman in a same-sex relationship who demanded that her counselor “personally bless” her union. This is a soul in mortal sin, a soul in danger of eternal damnation. The article treats her as a victim of Canepa’s “refusal to affirm” rather than as a sinner in need of conversion. This is the inversion of charity that characterizes the post-conciliar Church. True charity would have Canepa explain, with firmness and compassion, that sodomy is a mortal sin, that it offends God, and that repentance and conversion are necessary for salvation. Instead, the article celebrates Canepa’s “refusal to abandon his beliefs” as if the beliefs themselves were the issue, rather than the client’s spiritual peril.
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that “fraternal correction is a work of charity” (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 33, a. 1). The article’s framing — which presents Canepa’s refusal to affirm as the problem, rather than the client’s demand for a blessing of her sin — is a perversion of charity. It is the charity of the world, which tells sinners what they want to hear, rather than the charity of Christ, which tells sinners the truth that will save them.
Conclusion: The Bankruptcy of Accommodation
This article, while ostensibly defending a Catholic counselor, reveals the utter bankruptcy of the post-conciliar strategy of accommodation to the sexual revolution. By framing the issue as a matter of constitutional law rather than divine law, by celebrating secular court decisions rather than proclaiming the kingship of Christ, and by remaining silent on the mortal sin of sodomy, the article demonstrates that the post-conciliar Church has lost the capacity to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world. The fine imposed on Canepa is not an injustice to be remedied by appellate courts; it is a persecution to be endured for the sake of Christ the King, whose law is not subject to the jurisdiction of any secular authority. Until the Church recovers her voice and proclaims, without compromise or apology, that sodomy is a mortal sin and that Christ is King over all nations — including Oregon — these battles will continue to be fought on the enemy’s terrain, with the enemy’s weapons, and according to the enemy’s rules.
Source:
Oregon counselor sues after being fined $90,000 for not affirming client’s same-sex relationship (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 08.05.2026