Because you have probably been asked that so many times before, I bet you thought I was talking about that age-old abortion question. But, I'm not. For me, this question is about the role churches and other religious institutions are playing in politics, and more specifically, anti-abortion churches. As an activist, I have always viewed the issue through a political lens. Yet recent comments from a leading Catholic Bishop and the IRS suggest that there is also a lens of legality and morality that can be used when examining the issue.

Last week, we told you about the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) decision to reject an official communion ban for politicians who support abortion rights. Commenting on that decision, Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, the archbishop of Washington and head of the task force, stated, “My concern is the fear that the intense polarization and bitter battles of partisan politics may be seeping into the broader ecclesial life of our Catholic people…"

Definitely a consideration worthy of pause. Rather than heeding the not-so-subtle warning to essentially consider the larger effect these political-power ploys have on a more global scale among the Catholic community, pulpit-planning for the 2006 election cycle is well under way.

Beginning July 4th, Father Frank Pavone and Priests for Life will launch an 18-week election prayer campaign. The aim of the effort is “to help pro-life candidates at the polls and encourage voters to choose candidates who are most likely to help reduce or stop abortions.” The organization has designed a special web site to provide a daily prayer for voters, resources for clergy, and a booklet with “Ten Easy Steps to Voting with a Clear Conscience” for both.

As a card-carrying “choicer”, I find their goal of declaring candidates who support reproductive health “not worthy of public office” clearly objectionable, however, there is nothing legally wrong with what they are doing. Anti-choice forces have long aligned themselves with like-minded religious institutions to influence the voting activity of parishioners. Several years ago in fact, while working to defeat an anti-choice ballot measure, I got a call asking how our campaign planned to reach as many people as the opposition was reaching through their statewide alliances with anti-abortion churches.

It’s a question those now working on both sides of the South Dakota abortion ban will have to face – but with a bit more legal guidance this time from the IRS, as “the agency is promising stricter enforcement of rules against religious groups endorsing or intervening in election campaigns.”

But – the new IRS rules resulting from illegal electoral activity in 2004, doesn’t seem to be changing the plans of the Sioux Falls Catholic Diocese that intends to encourage voter support for South Dakota’s abortion ban. Chancellor Jerry Klein states, “I don't think there's any mystery about what the church's position is on abortion, so I'm certain we will be involved.” They intend to distribute information for clergy to be used during sermons and information to be distributed at churches.

Personally, because of their broad reach, I would rather not see anti-choice churches involved in the political fray. For the IRS, churches can legally be involved in elections provided they don’t go too far. And it seems that for Archbishop McCarrick, such involvement leads compromise for the Church, and to disharmony in the pews and within the broader community the church serves.

So legal or not, moral or not – you decide. What do you think?