The Catholic Church & the Johnson Amendment
A win for freedom of speech and religion in America
What is the Johnson Amendment?
The Johnson Amendment took a crippling blow today as far as churches go. A win for freedom of speech and religion in the United States! The Johnson Amendment is a part of the U.S. tax code named after President Lyndon Johnson who when he was a Senator in 1954 proposed the preliminary draft of the law. Basically, it prohibits 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Where the issue resided, prior to today, was with churches.
There are many news stories that can be found on the decision handed down today. Here is one.
If you want to read the actual JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT, then please download the 7 page document below.
What I want to look at briefly is two things.
First, I want to provide a brief commentary.
Second, I want to make the argument that it is good that churches are exempt but universities and other charitable organizations are not, and, hopefully, I will draw some good distinctions.
My Commentary on the Johnson Amendment not extending to Churches
Just because a church CAN endorse or oppose specific political candidates does not mean they SHOULD.
I will give a practical example and then give some principles about why this is the case. To be clear, I am focusing on the Catholic Church in this short commentary.
Using the example of the last presidential election in 2024: no sane person can make an argument for a faithful Catholic endorsing Kamala Harris (if I need to explain this, I’m afraid I can’t help you). But a rational argument can be made for a faithful Catholic opposing Donald Trump (if I need to explain this, I’m afraid I can’t help you). In our, unfortunately, two party system, an endorsement of one candidate amounts to an opposition of the other or vice versa. By saying from the pulpit that a Catholic ought to vote for one candidate or not vote for one candidate simply becomes a catch 22. By pointing out serious faults in one candidate, the other candidate will be passively brought forward as the candidate to choose, whether intentionally or not.
The practical example I just gave should highlight some of the pitfalls of endorsing candidates from the pulpit. But, in general, it is also more prudent and respectful to stick to the policies and goals of a candidate or platform. By shifting the focus away from candidate and towards what they stand for, the priest would be truly preaching and teaching. Considering the pulpit is the place where the pastor addresses his flock most powerfully, we can assume a liturgical context. The liturgy should not be the time or place for a priest to share his political views, but it is absolutely the time for a pastor to preach and teach on Catholic principles of faith and morals!! When a pastor “threads the needle” and speaks on principles, he is being respectful of the lay person he is forming. The laity are called to sanctify the world which means engaging in the public square and the political arena.
So, I think it is phenomenal that the Johnson Amendment no longer extends to churches! In our modern world, the average leftist American cannot discern the different between principles of faith and morals and actual “political speech.” And, frankly, those on the right do not do much better in finding the golden mean of speaking to ideas and principles without overstepping. Again, my issue with the priest getting into politics is not about separation of Church and state—which I think is a farce—but about him not staying in his lane and allowing the laity to step up and do the job that to which they are properly called.
To see more about why the separation of Church and state has been stretched past the breaking point, please read:
At any rate, the document released today said this, and it is a beautiful description of what the Church is: a family.
“Bona fide communications internal to a house of worship, between the house of worship and its congregation, in connection with religious services, do neither of those things, any more than does a family discussion concerning candidates. Thus, 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 as properly interpreted…”
A family discussion concerning candidates. The Church is a family, the Family of God, and we ought to be able to discuss internally whatever we desire. It is good, right, and just.
In external communications, there is no fear of reprisal from the government because the Catholic Church, as such, does not speak to the world through its “usual channels of communication on matters of faith;” rather, if everything is well ordered, it is the laity and various apostolates that do and ought to speak to the world!
Why Are Churches Different?
While all 501(c)(3) organizations share tax-exempt status, not all stand in the same constitutional or theological position.
Churches Stand on Dual Constitutional Ground
Each Catholic Parish is a part of the Diocese in which it is located, and each diocese is a microcosm of the universal Church. Our hierarchical structure is like a body. Certainly, the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, but even here on earth, with the bishops in union with the pope, it is a metaphorical body. Churches are not just speech-making institutions; they are worshiping bodies. Their communication—especially within the context of religious services—is protected not only by the Free Speech Clause, but also by the Free Exercise Clause. That constitutional protection means that preaching, teaching, and exhortation about public matters are part of religious practice, not political participation in the ordinary sense. Political participation belongs to the laity.
Churches Are Not Voluntary Nonprofits in the Same Sense
Most 501(c)(3) entities apply for status and accept certain conditions. Churches do not. They are presumed tax-exempt under federal law; they do not have to specially apply for this status. If a university chooses to receive federal funding or tax benefits, it knowingly enters into a regulatory framework (someone should remind Harvard, it seems). But churches are not contracting parties with the IRS in the same way which gives them a distinct legal character.
The State Has No Competence in the Pulpit
To enforce the Johnson Amendment against churches would require the federal government to scrutinize the content of sermons! That is precisely the kind of entanglement the Establishment Clause was meant to prevent. Again, read my article on Religious Freedom. The court rightly recognized in the joint motion that a broad reading of the Johnson Amendment would favor religious traditions that avoid political themes over those that do not. The Constitution makes it clear that the government cannot be in the business of determining which religion is superior to which.
The Law Already Makes Room for This Distinction
The text of the Johnson Amendment prohibits political “participation or intervention.” But the ordinary meaning of those words does not extend to internal religious teaching or preaching during public worship, like the Holy Mass. A pastor urging his congregation to think biblically about public decisions, ideas, goals, and means is not campaigning—he is being a pastor.
The Constitution rightly treats churches differently from other charitable organizations and universities. The State cannot police the conscience of a person, nor should it be infiltrating the sanctuary to vet the words of a homily. For better or worse, we live in a pluralistic society (which brings with it all manner of difficulties for a faithful Catholic), and good boundaries must be maintained for the good of the Church and the country. And healthy boundary does not mean separation.