The Oregon Board of Licensed Professional Counselors and Therapists has withdrawn its disciplinary order against Catholic counselor Frank Canepa, who faced nearly $90,000 in fines for refusing to affirm a client’s same-sex relationship. The board cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in *Chiles v. Salazar*, which held that states cannot silence counselors’ personal or professional viewpoints during talk therapy. The case reveals the inherent conflict between the natural law and the anti-Christian legal order now dominating the United States.
The Natural Law Under Siege
The Canepa case is not a victory for religious liberty but a symptom of a legal system that has severed itself from the supernatural order and the natural law. The state’s demand that a Catholic counselor “bless” a same-sex relationship is a direct assault on the virtue of religion and the first commandment. The Church has always taught that the state, as a society, is subject to God’s law. As Pope Leo XIII wrote in *Immortale Dei*, “The Almighty, therefore, has given the charge of the human race to two powers, the ecclesiastical and the civil, the one being set over divine, and the other over human, things.” By punishing a counselor for adhering to the divine law, the Oregon board usurped a jurisdiction it does not possess, acting not as a legitimate civil authority but as an instrument of a particular moral orthodoxy—one that is anti-Christian.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in *Chiles v. Salazar* is a naturalistic compromise. It protects the counselor’s “viewpoint” but does not affirm the objective truth of the Catholic doctrine on marriage. The Court’s language of “viewpoint discrimination” reduces the faith to a subjective opinion, a private preference that must be tolerated only because the secular state has no “compelling interest” to suppress it. This is the indifferentism condemned by Pope Gregory XVI in *Mirari Vos* and by Pope Pius IX in the *Syllabus of Errors*, proposition 17: “Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.” The Court’s decision, and the board’s withdrawal, operate within a legal framework that presupposes the neutrality of the state toward religion—a neutrality that is, in reality, a mask for the establishment of secularism as the state religion.
The Apostate State and the “Catholic” Counselor
The article’s focus on “free speech” and “free exercise of religion” reveals the profound theological poverty of the modern concept of rights. The Catholic counselor’s duty is not a matter of personal “viewpoint” but of obedience to the divine law. The state has no authority to command what God forbids or to forbid what God commands. The Oregon board’s initial action was an act of formal cooperation with evil, demanding that the counselor publicly contradict the natural law. The withdrawal, prompted by a secular court, does not repent of this injustice; it merely acknowledges the state’s inability to enforce its will at this moment.
The article’s silence on the objective moral order is deafening. It does not mention that the counselor’s refusal was not a “personal” choice but a public profession of the truth about marriage. The state’s demand is a form of *damnatio memoriae* against the natural law. The counselor’s submission to the board’s original order would have been a sin of formal cooperation with evil. The board’s withdrawal is not a vindication of the faith but a temporary retreat of the persecutor. The state remains hostile to the truth. The counselor’s victory is a legal one, not a moral one, because the moral order has been entirely removed from the equation.
The Role of the Conciliar Sect and the Archdiocese of Portland
The article mentions the Archdiocese of Portland in a related context, but the conciliar sect’s silence on the underlying moral issue is characteristic. The post-conciliar church has embraced the modern concept of religious freedom, as expressed in *Dignitatis Humanae*, which contradicts the perennial teaching of the Church. Pope Pius IX, in the *Syllabus of Errors*, condemned the proposition that “every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true” (proposition 15). The conciliar sect’s acceptance of this principle has led to a situation where the “Catholic” hierarchy often remains silent when the state persecutes individuals for adhering to the natural law, because the conciliar church has accepted the state’s competence to govern the public square according to secular principles.
The Archdiocese of Portland, like most dioceses in the United States, is part of this conciliar structure. Its public statements on such issues are typically framed in terms of “dialogue” and “respect for conscience,” never affirming the objective truth of the natural law with the clarity demanded by the Gospel. The conciar sect’s legal arm, the USCCB, often files amicus briefs in support of “religious liberty” but never challenges the state’s competence to define marriage or the family. This is the fruit of the modernist heresy condemned by Pope St. Pius X in *Lamentabili Sane Exitu*: “The Church is an enemy of the progress of natural and theological sciences” (proposition 57). The conciliar sect has accepted the state’s definition of marriage and now merely seeks to carve out a space for “conscience” within that false framework.
The Supreme Court’s Naturalistic Compromise
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in *Chiles v. Salazar* is a naturalistic compromise that protects the counselor’s “viewpoint” but does not affirm the objective truth of the Catholic doctrine on marriage. The Court’s language of “viewpoint discrimination” reduces the faith to a subjective opinion, a private preference that must be tolerated only because the secular state has no “compelling interest” to suppress it. This is the indifferentism condemned by Pope Gregory XVI in *Mirari Vos* and by Pope Pius IX in the *Syllabus of Errors*, proposition 17: “Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.”
The Court’s decision, and the board’s withdrawal, operate within a legal framework that presupposes the neutrality of the state toward religion—a neutrality that is, in reality, a mask for the establishment of secularism as the state religion. The state’s “interest” is not in the truth but in the maintenance of a pluralistic order that is inherently hostile to the Catholic faith. The counselor’s victory is a legal one, not a moral one, because the moral order has been entirely removed from the equation.
The Duty of the Catholic Counselor
The Catholic counselor’s duty is not to seek the protection of the state but to adhere to the divine law, regardless of the consequences. The state’s hostility is a form of persecution, and the counselor’s suffering is a participation in the Cross. The article’s focus on “free speech” and “free exercise of religion” obscures the supernatural dimension of the conflict. The counselor’s refusal to bless a same-sex relationship is not a “viewpoint” but a public profession of the truth about marriage. The state’s demand is a form of *damnatio memoriae* against the natural law.
The counselor’s victory is a temporary one. The state will continue to persecute Catholics who adhere to the natural law. The conciliar sect will continue to remain silent, because it has accepted the state’s competence to define marriage and the family. The only hope for the Catholic counselor is to remain faithful to the divine law, regardless of the consequences. As Pope Leo XIII wrote in *Immortale Dei*, “The Almighty, therefore, has given the charge of the human race to two powers, the ecclesiastical and the civil, the one being set over divine, and the other over human, things.” The state’s authority is limited by the divine law, and the Catholic counselor must obey God rather than men.
Conclusion: The State as Persecutor
The Oregon board’s withdrawal of its disciplinary order is not a victory for religious liberty but a temporary retreat of the persecutor. The state remains hostile to the truth, and the counselor’s victory is a legal one, not a moral one. The conciliar sect’s silence on the underlying moral issue is characteristic of its acceptance of the modern concept of religious freedom, which contradicts the perennial teaching of the Church. The Catholic counselor’s duty is to adhere to the divine law, regardless of the consequences. The state’s hostility is a form of persecution, and the counselor’s suffering is a participation in the Cross. The only hope for the Catholic counselor is to remain faithful to the divine law, regardless of the consequences.
Source:
Oregon withdraws disciplinary actions against Catholic counselor (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 22.06.2026