Overreach Weekly: A Priest Doesn’t Need to Know How You Vote

The IRS is making it easier for churches to endorse politicians.

We promised you a weekly-ish update on religious overreach in the news — here’s the latest, compiled after a brief summer break at Catholics for Choice.

—> The IRS just okayed a carveout for churches to endorse politicians. In a proposed settlement of a case brought by the conservative evangelical National Religious Broadcasters and two churches in Texas, the IRS has declared that “communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment.” Put more simply, they claim that political speech during religious services is not the same as participating in an election, and churches should be permitted to talk about politics — and candidates — without the fear of losing their tax-exempt status. As Religion News Service points out, this has been an objective of right-wing groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom (the very same group behind Dobbs, Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, and more).

It's worth noting that this is highly unpopular, and the judge in the case could still reject the settlement. According to Public Religion Research Institute, majorities of all religious traditions oppose allowing houses of worship to endorse candidates and remain tax-exempt — and only Christian nationalists support it. And while I’m all-too-familiar with the progressive quip to “tax the churches!” I don’t think that will solve the problem either.

Even the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said, “The Catholic Church maintains its stance of not endorsing or opposing political candidates.” However, I’d argue that the Catholic hierarchy has a tendency to weaponize a non-partisan identity. They instruct Catholics to identify abortion as the "preeminent priority" at the voting booth and imply that our votes must align on one particular issue (which falls to one political party), even when it comes at the cost of other policies, as we’ve seen this year with immigration and Medicaid cuts.

Regardless, the emerging risk is that we already know that individual priests and bishops can go rogue (for example, Frank Pavone of Priests for Life was removed from the priesthood, and Bishop Joseph Strickland was removed from his post in Tyler, Texas). Doing away with the Johnson Amendment exacerbates this already-present issue, potentially removing the hierarchy's motivation to address these severe cases. Churches need more accountability measures, not less, to ensure that priests aren’t preaching from the pulpit in ways that further alienate their community.

---

---

—> The Catholics who folded on the “Big Beautiful Bill.” Like many of you, I’m disappointed in Catholic Senator Lisa Murkowski’s vote last week, which paved the way for the passage of budget reconciliation. In many ways, I blamed her for the increase in funds for ICE and drastic cuts to Medicaid and other safety-net programs, hoping that she might have moral courage — perhaps even inspired by her Catholic faith — to vote against the bill, as she did in 2017. But as angry, sad, or disheartened as I might be, it’s not just her. It’s also our Catholic-convert vice president, who cast the tiebreaking vote. Every Catholic in the controlling party didn’t cross party lines to block the bill, except for Senators Susan Collins, Senator Thom Tillis, and Representative Brian Fitzpatrick, the Catholics who broke from their party to vote no. The 19^th has a powerful and infuriating roundup of exactly how much women, children, immigrants, and/or LGBTQ+ Americans will suffer from the passage of this bill — these are the very people who our faith calls us to serve first.

I’m under no illusion that a politician’s Catholic identity tipped the scales one way or the other on this bill, especially when the USCCB could have more harshly condemned the bill or urged elected officials explicitly to vote no. In a press release after passage, the president of the USCCB said, “My brother bishops and I have repeatedly and consistently urged lawmakers to use the budget reconciliation process to help families in need and to change course on aspects of the bill that fail the poor and vulnerable.” The hypocrisy is not lost on me that Catholic clergy will deny Communion to politicians who support abortion access, but this is their idea of a strongly worded statement on budget reconciliation. I’m not in favor of denying Communion to politicians who vote a certain way, but the USCCB certainly did not go far enough on this bill.

—> Inside the Dark Money Network Fueling the Next Phase of the Anti-Abortion Fight from NOTUS has an in-depth look at how Leonard Leo pulls the puppet strings of the anti-abortion movement, mainly through grants via the Concord Fund. However, the piece does not once mention Leo’s Catholic identity. While it’s a great piece, ignoring this reality is a strategic error. And this isn’t a criticism of NOTUS — it’s quite common for progressives to talk about Leo without mentioning his Catholicism.

Here's a counterexample that I love. Last fall, Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern and Dahlia Lithwick spoke about Leo’s Catholic influence. Here’s what Stern said:

[Leo] is promoting conservative Catholic values that frequently infringe upon the freedom of others. These are values that prohibit women from obtaining an abortion, even in the case of rape, even if it is necessary to preserve her health or even spare her from death. He has made it clear he believes that same-sex relationships should be unlawful, same-sex marriages should be nullified, abolished. He believes that much of modern secular society is under the control of the devil. So he uses his authority, and specifically his money, to try to restrict other people’s rights and to try to impose these reactionary values. But he also insists his work, his values, are above all criticism—that vigorous public debate and allowing for vigorous public criticism of this work is off the table because he claims it’s anti-Catholic bigotry.

Now, Stern also points out that Leo has a “knee-jerk response” that criticism of his work is rooted in so-called anti-Catholic bigotry. Perhaps that’s why secular groups are less likely to touch upon his personal religious beliefs like Stern did last fall. These attempted deflections are a big reason why Catholics for Choice launched this Substack — it’s harder to claim that we’re anti-Catholic. But please don’t let that fear stop you from identifying when one political actor and the institutions they are affiliated with are seeking to push one narrow, theological view into our politics.

---

---

Further Reading:

• From Katherine Stewart, How US Christian nationalists are exporting their agenda to Europe.

• The official Homeland Security X account weaponized a Bible verse to justify mass deportation. Read via National Catholic Reporter.

• The bishop of San Bernardino, California, has issued a “dispensation from the obligation to attend Mass” for parishioners who are fearful of immigration enforcement and ICE raids.

• Feds investigate hospitals over religious exemptions from gender-affirming care, from NPR.

  ---

Let us know your thoughts — leave a comment!