Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act

Mr. Speaker, I am on the floor tonight because recently we remembered the 60th anniversary of D-Day, World War II. We remembered, we had Memorial weekend, Memorial Day, and then we had the funeral of President Reagan. I think we all remember the price of freedom from those who served in World War II and in all of our wars; and certainly Mr. Reagan led this great Nation as we tried to create freedom for other countries, and he certainly distinguished himself in that way.

I am here tonight to talk about what I consider a real threat to the morality of America, and that is that the spiritual leaders of this great Nation are prohibited from expressing their first amendment rights to speak out on the moral and political issues of the day.

Many people know the history of this. Some do, some do not. The history is that from the beginning of this great Nation, until 1954, a spiritual leader could speak in his church, synagogue, or mosque on any issue of the day and not feel that there would be any retribution from the Internal Revenue Service. Well, one might say, what do you mean the Internal Revenue Service? Well, in 1954, Lyndon Baines Johnson, a United States Senator, offered an amendment on a revenue bill going through the Senate that was never debated. In fact, the Republican majority accepted Senator Johnson's amendment on unanimous consent, so there were no hearings, no debate, or anything. And basically what Mr. Johnson was trying to do at that time was the H.L. Hunt family in Texas was adamantly opposed to his reelection, and they had a couple of 301 think tanks, and so he wanted to quiet those think tanks. So, therefore, he put an amendment on a revenue bill going through the Senate that was never debated.

The unintended consequences of Mr. Johnson's amendment was and is the fact that churches that are 501(c)(3)s are prohibited from having any type of sermons that might be interpreted as being political at all. I do not know how one can uphold the teachings in the Bible if one does not talk about certain moral issues of the day.

This Nation was built on Judeo-Christian principles; and if this Nation is going to remain strong, then it must remember the Judeo- Christian principles that are the foundation of this great Nation.

The reason I wanted to come to the floor tonight, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the bishop of Colorado Springs issued a pastoral letter to all of the Catholics in his diocese, and I will submit this entire letter for the Record.

The reason I bring this tonight to the floor is that the Bishop Sheridan of Colorado Springs has a responsibility to the teachings of Jesus Christ as well as the teachings of the Pope. Being a Catholic leader, he does feel very strongly about the pro-life issue; he does feel very strongly about stem cell research; he does feel strongly about euthanasia, the protection of our elderly. So he issued this pastoral letter reminding the Catholics in his diocese that in this year's election they should look carefully at those running for political office.

Now, he did not mention Democrat or Republican, he did not mention anything of that nature or the name of the candidates. But what he did was to issue this pastoral letter. And then Barry Lynn, who is the leader of the Americans for Separation of Church and State, noted in his letter of complaint to the Internal Revenue Service that Bishop Sheridan used ``code words.'' Code words like pro-choice, pro-life, liberal, conservative, Democrat or Republican.

Mr. Speaker, this bothers me in this great Nation that we would have an agency that because of the Johnson amendment is to enforce the law, but this was not part of the Johnson amendment. There is nothing in the Johnson amendment that talks about code words. That was an administrative decision by the Internal Revenue Service that if you as a religious leader, whether you be Protestant, Catholic, Jew, or Muslim, if you have these types of sermons and you might mention these words like pro-life or pro-choice, then you could have your 501(c)(3) status jeopardized.

Mr. Speaker, I am of the firm belief that this Nation, I do not believe that

my colleagues on either side of the aisle, whether they are religious or nonreligious, believe that we should have code words that someone who is speaking from the heart, speaking from the Bible might get themselves in trouble because they are advocating what the church stands for, what their religion stands for.

So, Mr. Speaker, I tonight want to work toward my close by saying that I hope that we as a legislative body will look seriously at this issue. I do not know if the House will bring this bill up that I introduced, H.R. 235; but I believe sincerely that prior to 1954, every preacher in this country, every rabbi in this country, every priest in this country, every cleric in this country had the right to speak on these issues and to speak based on the Constitution and based on the teachings of their religion.

So, Mr. Speaker, with that, I would like to say that I hope that the men and women who have worn the uniform for this Nation, those who have given their lives for this Nation, I believe sincerely that they believe that our spiritual leaders in this great Nation do have freedom of speech; but when it comes to the moral and political issues of the day, they do not have freedom of speech. So I hope that again the leadership of both parties will work with me to restore that freedom of speech. It only means that a minister or a priest or a rabbi or a cleric, if they choose to talk about these issues, may do so.

I close by asking God to please bless our men and women in uniform and their families and please, God, bless America.

A Pastoral Letter to the Catholic Faithful of the Diocese of Colorado

Springs on the Duties of Catholic Politicians and Voters

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ: This coming November

we Americans will participate in one of the most important

national elections in recent history. The president, senators

and congressmen who are placed in office by our votes will

serve at a time in which issues that are critical to the very

survival of our civilization will be at the top of the

political agenda. As we prepare for these elections I

consider it my duty as your bishop to write to you about

these matters so that you might go to the polls this fall

with a well-informed conscience.

The Church teaches that ``man has the right to act in

conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral

decisions.'' Often we hear people claim that they are making

decisions in accord with conscience even when those decisions

defy the natural law and the revealed teachings of Jesus

Christ. This is because of a widespread misunderstanding of

the very meaning of conscience. For many, conscience is no

more than personal preference or even a vague sense or

feeling that something is right or wrong, often based on

information drawn from sources that have nothing to do with

the law of God.

The right judgment of conscience is not a matter of

personal preference nor has it anything to do with feelings.

It has only to do with objective truth. ``Conscience must be

informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed

conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its

judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true

good willed by the wisdom of the Creater. The education of

conscience is indispensable for human beings who are

subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer

their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.''

All people have a grave obligation to form their

consciences by adhering to the truth, precisely as that truth

is found in the natural law and in the revelation of God. As

Catholics we have the further obligation to give assent to

the doctrinal and moral teachings of the Church because ``to

the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to

announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the

social order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to

the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights

of the human person or the salvation of souls.'' In other

words, as people who profess the Catholic faith, we must

``have the mind of Christ'' in every judgment and act.

Among the many distortions and misrepresentations that

prevail in the current debates about the relationship between

religion and the social order (politics) is the assertion

that faith and policies are to the kept separated. This,

apparently, is based upon the American doctrine of the

separation of church and state. In fact, the wall that

separates church and state is the safeguard against both the

establishment of a state religion and the imposition or

sectarian religious beliefs and practices, such as particular

denominational forms of worship or theological tenets. In no

way does the American doctrine of separation of church and

state even suggest that the well-formed consciences of

religious people should not be brought to bear on their

political choices.

The Second Vatican Council was abundantly clear on this

matter. ``Nor, on the contrary, are they any less wide of the

mark who think that religion consists in acts of worship

alone and in the discharge of certain moral obligations, and

who imagine they can plunge themselves into earthly affairs

in such a way as to imply that these are altogether divorced

from the religious life. This split between the faith which

many profess and their daily lives deserves to be counted

among the more serious errors of our age. Long since, the

Prophets of the Old Testament fought vehemently against this

scandal and even more so did Jesus Christ Himself in the New

Testament threaten it with grave punishments. Therefore, let

there be no false opposition between professional and social

activities on the one part, and religious life on the

other.''

When Catholics are elected to public office or when

Catholics go to the polls to vote, they take their

consciences with them. Pope John Paul II has consistently

taught this as, for example, when he said that those who are

directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a ``grave and

clear obligation to oppose'' any law that attacks human life.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has declared

that, ``in this context, it must be noted also that a well-

formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a

political program or an individual law which contradicts the

fundamental contents of faith and morals.'' Anyone who

professes the Catholic faith with his lips while at the same

time publicly supporting legislation or candidates that defy

God's law makes a mockery of that faith and belies his

identity as a Catholic.

In November we will once again have the privilege of

exercising our most precious right as citizens--the right to

vote. Our choices will be made from among an array of

candidates who take a variety of positions with regard to

many important issues. In the midst of what could be a

difficult and confusing exercise it is very important to

remember that not all issues are of equal gravity. As men and

women of good will we strive to achieve true justice for all

people and to preserve their rights as human beings. There

is, however, one right that is ``inalienable'', and that is

the RIGHT TO LIFE. This is the FIRST right. This is the right

that grounds all other human rights. This is the issue that

trumps all other issues.

The November elections will be critical in the battle to

restore the right to life to all citizens, especially the

unborn and the elderly and infirm. As a result of the pro-

life efforts of countless Americans the number of abortions

performed in our country is now declining for the first time

since the appalling Supreme Court decision of 1973 that made

it ``legal'' to kill our children. We cannot allow the

progress that has been made to be reversed by a pro-abortion

President, Senate or House of Representatives. Neither can we

permit illicit stem cell research that makes use of aborted

babies. Any movement to promote and legalize euthanasia must

be halted. Our votes have the power to stop these

abominations.

There must be no confusion in these matters. Any Catholic

politicians who advocate for abortion, for illicit stem cell

research or for any form of euthanasia ipso facto place

themselves outside full communion with the Church and so

jeopardize their salvation. Any Catholics who vote for

candidates who stand for abortion, illicit stem cell research

or euthanasia suffer the same fateful consequences. It is for

this reason that these Catholics, whether candidates for

office or those who would vote for them, may not receive Holy

Communion until they have recanted their positions and been

reconciled with God and the Church in the Sacrament of

Penance.

In recent months another issue has reached the level of our

legislatures. It is so-called ``same-sex marriage.'' Those

who now promote this deviancy often present it as a human

right denied homosexual persons and thus illegally

discriminating against them. But, in fact, no one has a right

to that which flies in the face of God's own design. Marriage

is not an invention of individuals or even of societies.

Rather it is an element of God's creation. It is God who

created us male and female. It is God who joined man and

women so that they could be fruitful and multiply and fill

the earth. Every civilization known to mankind has understood

marriage as the union of a man and a woman for

the procreation and rearing of children. And yet now, in

21st century America, there are those who would want us to

believe that all people of all times have been mistaken

about the true nature and purpose of marriage. No one can

simply redefine marriage to suit a political or social

agenda.

Once again, we must be clear about this matter. The future

of our world depends upon the strength of the family, the

basic unit of society. The future of the family depends on

the state of marriage. The family--father, mother and

children--reflects the nature of God Himself, who is a

communion of selfless and self-giving love. For this reason

marriage and family life cannot be whatever we want them to

be. They are only and always as God has created them. As in

the matter of abortion, any Catholic politician who would

promote so-called ``same-sex marriage'' and any Catholic who

would vote for that political candidate place themselves

outside the full communion of the Church and may not receive

Holy Communion until they have recanted their positions and

been reconciled by the Sacrament of Penance.

The Church never directs citizens to vote for any specific

candidate. The Church does,

however, have the right and the obligation to teach clearly

and fully the objective truth about the dignity and rights of

the human person. These teachings, in turn, must inform the

consciences of voters. ``By its intervention in this area,

the Church's Magisterium does not wish to exercise political

power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics

regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends--as is

its proper function--to instruct and illuminate the

consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in

political life, so that their actions may always serve the

integral promotion of the human person and the common good.''

Dear friends in Christ, I exhort you with all my heart to

take courage and proclaim the Gospel of Life to those who

will stand for elected office this fall. It is by your

prayers and by your votes that politicians who are

unconditionally pro-life and pro-family will serve our

country. Conversely, if our voices remain silent or if, God

forbid, we vote contrary to our informed consciences, we will

see our country led down a short path to ruin. We want

freedom for all, but there can be no freedom without truth.

In the words of our Holy Father: ``When freedom is detached

from objective truth it becomes impossible to establish

personal rights on a firm rational basis; and the ground is

laid for society to be at the mercy of the unrestrained will

of individuals or the oppressive totalitarianism of public

authority.''

Let us all pray for those politicians who claim to be

Catholic yet continue to oppose the law of God and the rights

of persons that, by the grace of God, they will be converted

once again to the full and authentic articulation and

practice of the faith.

Finally, I wish to affirm my brother bishops who have

proclaimed the truth of these critical matters and who have

admonished those Catholic politicians who place themselves at

odds with the truth of God. May that truth which is the

foundation of genuine freedom prevail in our country.

Given at the Chancery on this first day of May 2004, the

Feast of St. Joseph the Worker.

Most Reverend Michael J. Sheridan,

Bishop of Colorado Springs.

Madam Speaker, I was, like everybody else in the Congress, home during July 4 and enjoyed being back in my district

and meeting the people and listening to the people. I could not help but think that July 4 has different meanings for all of us: Freedom, independence. We think about what July 4 means and has meant to the history of our Nation.

I went back and found an article written in 1995 that was in the Boston Globe by Jeff Jacoby, and he had in the article about the Founders of this great Nation, the writers of the Constitution. I do not know if this is a quote from one of the leaders of that period of time or from Mr. Jacoby, but I want to share it: ``Religion can survive in the absence of freedom, but freedom without religion becomes dangerous and unstable.''

In addition, I would also like to share a quote by Alexis de Tocqueville. Alexis de Tocqueville was a French philosopher and historian who traveled to America in the 1830s, and he was so impressed with this great Nation. He wrote, ``In the end, the state of the Union comes down to the character of the people. I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors, ample rivers, and it was not there. I sought for it in the fertile fields, and boundless prairies, and it was not there. I sought it in her rich mines, and vast world commerce, and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.''

Madam Speaker, I share that because our churches and synagogues in America are under attack. A lot of people would be surprised with me saying that, but recently the bishop of Colorado Springs, Bishop Sheridan, a Catholic bishop, wrote a three-page pastoral letter to every Catholic in his district. He did not say anything about Bush or Kerry, he did not say anything about Republican or Democrat, but being a Catholic, the Catholic Church stands for protecting the unborn. It is opposed to stem cell research and euthanasia. He said nothing about a party, nothing about a candidate.

But because he used the word ``prolife,'' Barry Lynn of the Americans for Separation of Church and State filed a complaint because this bishop is following the teachings of his church and his belief in Christ. And yet a complaint was filed that would challenge the 501(c)(3) status of that diocese.

It is a sad day in America when we have men and women overseas fighting for freedom for the Iraqis and the American people, and yet the reason why Mr. Lynn filed a complaint was because of code words.

I have introduced a bill, H.R. 235, that would eliminate the Johnson amendment that has put the restrictions on our churches, synagogues and mosques. But in addition to the Johnson law, in the early 1990s the IRS decided to expand the definition of the Johnson law, so now they have code words, and I will submit those later for the Record.

Regarding code words, this is what it says. The concern by the Internal Revenue Service is that 501(c)(3) organizations may support or oppose a particular candidate in a political campaign without specifically naming the candidate by using code words to substitute for the candidate's name in its message, such as conservative, liberal, prolife, prochoice, antichoice, Republican, Democrat, et cetera. When this occurs, it is quite evident what is happening, and an intervention is taking place.

What a sad commentary on the greatness of this Nation. From the beginning of America until 1954, there was never any restriction of speech on our churches, synagogues and mosques in this country, never until the Johnson amendment that went through the Senate on a revenue bill, never debated. Now ministers, priests and rabbis have the Federal Government through the Internal Revenue Service looking in on what they have to say when they are before their congregation.

Madam Speaker, I think that is a sad commentary on America. I think it is a sad commentary on those who have worn the uniform for this Nation and fought for freedom for the American people. If this was 1953, I would not be before this House because there would be no problem, there would be no restriction of speech. The first amendment right would be protected for those who speak on behalf of their Lord.

Madam Speaker, I close by saying that I hope that those of us in Congress on both sides of the aisle will do our part to make sure that the first amendment right applies to those who are spiritual leaders of America and protect their rights for which men and women have worn the uniform or are wearing the uniform.

Madam Speaker, I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform and their families. I close by asking God to please bless America.