The Church and Partisan Political Speech

In the run up to the 2024 presidential election I used this blog space to endorse a specific candidate and to discourage voting for the opponent.  I felt I had a moral necessity to do so, given the tremendous harm that was reasonably foreseeable, if that person were elected.  That is, of course, a very partisan political stance to take; something I never did as pastor of a parish, whether writing Sunday bulletin articles, preaching, or posting on the parish website.  And even though I am no longer a pastor or have pastoral responsibility for a particular community, I still would not and did not cross that line into partisan political speech in homilies in parishes where I helped out during that election year.  I recognize that churches/houses of worship have a vested interest—keeping their tax-exempt status intact—in maintaining that distinction, but I believe there is value in it, whether it affects tax-exempt status or not.  That is why the recent (July of 2025) pivot by the Internal Revenue Service is so problematic.  In a lawsuit against the agency, it agreed that churches/synagogues/mosques/houses of worship may endorse partisan political candidates and engage in other such partisan political speech, if it is done through their normal channels of communication.  If so, then the IRS will treat that type of speech as internal to the church/house of worship, and judge it no differently than it would similar discussions among “family members”.  Such speech would no longer be categorized as violating the 1954 Johnson Amendment, and so represents a significant re-interpretation of what it means to be tax-exempt and engage in partisan political speech.

I have no issue with partisan political speech by religious leaders as such.  As a citizen I have not only the right but responsibility to participate in the public political arena, especially when my conscience believes basic core moral values are threatened.  But I do so as any other citizen, using my own personal resources, my own personal social media platforms, making clear that my view has no official Church authority or endorsement.  When I am acting as the pastor, I have a responsibility to share the wisdom of our faith tradition, the implications of our doctrines, and the moral principles which underly our approach to personal human and social living. But never in a partisan political way.  Thus, what I might do in a personal blog, I would never do in a parish email, bulletin article, or homily.  This distinction, this separation between partisan and non-partisan political speech, had long been reinforced in the United States by the Internal Revenue Service’s interpretation of the 1954 Johnson Amendment, which forbade religious-based groups from engaging in partisan political speech and actions, if they want to maintain their tax-exempt status.  I think it is an important distinction; one that has been helpful for the clergy or religious leaders, as they address pressing social, economic, cultural and political issues; but one that is now up for grabs, with the IRS’s new interpretation of that tax-exempt rule.

Although I have long thought there is an unevenness in how the I.R.S. has applied this rule about political speech to tax-exempt groups, there is, I think, great value in having guard rails for clergy and people like me, when we are acting in our capacity as leaders of specific faith communities and as we craft our homilies and use other official means of communication, to help keep our communication non-partisan.  As soon as official times of religious speech or officially endorsed communications cross that non-partisan line, it turns that community away from unity and treats the religious community as just another part of the ideological and speech wars that flood (and often corrupt) social media and communication in today’s world.  Moreover, we need religious leaders, in their official capacity, to be taken seriously and listened to, when they speak out forcefully on concrete matters of social, economic and political injustice, based on their faith tradition’s beliefs and moral principles. It is already difficult to speak on social issues in a non-partisan way without people falsely dismissing it as partisan politics.  If clergy and religious leaders freely ignore that line of separation and have no guard rails or sanctions, then it will become all that much more difficult.  It truly would be a shame to have important communication tied to current events—based on objective moral principles, applications of official creedal statements or Gospel values—be easily swept (and dismissed) into the category of “partisan political, i.e. its-just-your-opinion” speech, when it has no such partisan edge.

In Catholic parishes and dioceses we already struggle with this issue, even when we are clearly being non-partisan and applying Catholic teaching to social issues.  For example, the Church’s moral principles connected to material goods: that all that we have and own belong ultimately to God; that we have a social obligation to use goods responsibly; that there is a preferential option for those who are poor or who lack sufficient access to such goods; and that such people have a moral claim on our material goods.  This definitive teaching should be part and parcel of any number of homilies or other communications.  Yes, some will falsely dismiss it as “partisan political” and so “only your opinion,” because it clearly is not compatible with a strictly laissez-faire economic approach.  Yet, it is still vital religious speech and it does not endorse a particular candidate or party.  It would be quite different, if I were to state that definitive teaching and then say “Therefore, to be faithful Catholics, you must vote for this particular party or candidate or support this specific Republican/Democratic legislation.”  This line of distinction between partisan political and moral principle-based political speech helps the pastor/religious leader to always root issues that have social-economic-political implications in his/her religious tradition and not simply personal political party affiliations.  In other words, to keep one’s language non-partisan.  Now, if that distinction no longer matters, clergy and other religious leaders will be more and more tempted to not make that distinction, tying the moral principles to a specific candidate or party and thereby obscuring the fundamental, objective truth of the moral underpinnings we are talking about.  Sadly, then, such religious leaders could turn their parishes and houses of worship and times of prayer into instruments in the cultural and ideological wars that divide the nation and world.

It is clear that many do not understand or, if they understand, they do not appreciate this distinction between partisan political speech and application of our faith and morals to concrete issues.  Some want the Church to endorse specific candidates, for example, when one is pro-abortion and one anti-abortion, and they have become upset when priests and bishops have refused to do so.  Others bristle when a homilist ties a gospel story and the Church’s core moral principles to current events, for example respect for and care for immigrants even if undocumented, and see such speech as too political, as if spirituality and living out our faith have no social-economic-cultural-political implications.  The first type of speech is partisan. The second is not.  For Christians, we believe in an incarnated Word, a Word made flesh, who dwells among us.  That means our words about this Word, crucified and risen, will have flesh and blood implications for our social, economic, cultural and political world.  It cannot be otherwise, unless we buy into a false dualism between “spirituality” and “real life.”  Keeping such language non-partisan helps us to always underscore the faith, moral or gospel principle or doctrine at stake.  This new interpretation of tax-exempt rules and political speech will both allow and tempt too many religious leaders to jump over that distinction.

In thinking about these things, I recently was reminded at the last Pax Christi USA conference of a quote from a sermon by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  It is from February 11, 1962 (various dates are given on the internet, but I think this is the correct one) and titled “A Knock at Midnight,” because Dr. King preaches on the gospel parable about the man who comes and knocks on a neighbor’s door after everyone has bedded down for the night (Luke 11:5-8). [It is available via the internet at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDRQTzNzu1I); I accessed it August 4, 2025.]  Here is a key quote from that sermon that captures well, I think, the role of faith groups and leaders of faith groups vis-à-vis political issues and partisan political governmental concerns:

The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority. If the church does not participate actively in the struggle for peace and for economic and racial justice, it will forfeit the loyalty of millions and cause men everywhere to say that it has atrophied its will.

In the context of this blog, I would nuance that quote a bit and suggest that the Church (or other religious group) is not to be the master or servant of a particular political party or candidate but to be the conscience to all parties and all candidates. It is a vocation that is essential, I believe, if we want the state to truly serve the common good of all its citizens.  Although I am sure that many churches/houses of worship will not hold to this distinction, now that the I.R.S. has changed its interpretation of the Johnson Amendment, I think there is value in maintaining that distinction, whether tax-exempt status is at stake or not.  Up until now in the Catholic Church, priests and bishops who have crossed that line have been tempered a bit by the worry about losing tax-exempt status and, overall, have been criticized by the wider body of bishops in the United States Catholic Bishops’ Conference.  Now, without that guard rail, will we be seeing in every election, one bishop’s personal partisan decision set against a neighboring one’s?  One priest’s against neighboring priests?  That would be a shame and reduce even further the public moral authority of all priests and bishops.