New data shows Americans oppose houses of worship endorsing political candidates
Pew Research Center survey shows 79% of Americans believe churches should not endorse political candidates. Majority also think religious institutions should remain neutral in elections. The study highlights public concern over mixing faith and politics. Findings reflect broader debate on the role of religion in public life.
5 months ago
Most Americans oppose houses of worship endorsing political candidates, according to a May 2026 Pew Research Center survey. Seventy‑nine percent say religious institutions should not support specific candidates, and a solid majority of both Republicans and Democrats share this view. The survey also reveals stable attitudes toward the separation of church and state and limited support for making Christianity the nation’s official religion. Efforts by the Trump administration to roll back the Johnson Amendment—a rule that bars 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches, from political campaigning—have faced legal setbacks, while the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reaffirms its non‑endorsement policy regardless of any legislative changes.
How should Catholic churches balance political engagement and neutrality?
Catholic teaching holds that the Church should engage public life to defend human dignity and the common good, while maintaining non-partisanship and a clear distinction between the Gospel and party politics. This balance is achieved by (a) grounding political participation in morality and justice, (b) giving clergy a teaching role rather than candidate-championing, and (c) using dialogue and conscience-formation instead of becoming “used” by political actors.
The Church does not view politics as something morally optional or merely technical. Participation in social life—including public life—is treated as an implication of human dignity: “It is necessary that all participate, each according to his position and role, in promoting the common good.”
Similarly, Catholic social teaching affirms that citizens should, “as far as possible,” take an active part in public life, and it treats political life as something that should occur “in a climate of genuine freedom.”
At the same time, Catholic teaching is careful about political forms: the “choice of the political regime” and rulers belongs to citizens, and diversity of political regimes can be morally acceptable when they serve legitimate goods; but regimes contrary to natural law, public order, and fundamental rights cannot achieve the common good.
In Catholic usage, “neutrality” in practice does not mean the Church becomes silent on moral questions. Instead, it means the Church does not align itself with a party or candidate and does not let political actors instrumentalize her witness.
Pope Leo XIV explicitly describes the kind of relationship between religion and political life that is appropriate for institutions and culture: a “healthy secularism” that affirms the value of religion while preserving the distinction—“not separation or confusion—from the political sphere.”
That distinction matters because the Church’s mission is not to run elections. Her mission is to hand on moral and social teaching and to help form consciences in light of the Gospel.
A key balancing rule in the Church’s own public guidance is role distinction between clergy/leadership and lay political action.
The U.S. Catholic bishops state that lay faithful bear the “direct duty” to work for a just ordering of society (quoting Deus Caritas Est in their reflection).
Meanwhile, Church leaders (bishops, with priests and deacons working with them in their mission) have a complementary responsibility: to teach fundamental moral principles, to provide guidance on the moral dimensions of public decisions, and to encourage the faithful to carry out their responsibilities in political life. Importantly, they add: “In fulfilling these responsibilities, the Church’s leaders avoid endorsing or opposing candidates.”
The bishops further summarize the Church’s public posture in blunt terms:
They also warn against substituting optics for real moral engagement: “Events and photo ops cannot substitute for serious dialogue.”
The reason the Church can’t be merely silent is that public policy inevitably touches moral realities—rights, justice, and human dignity.
For example, Pacem in Terris states that any government that refuses to recognize human rights or violates them “would not only fail in its duty; its decrees would be wholly lacking in binding force.”
This doesn’t automatically mean the Church must run campaigns; it does mean that when fundamental rights are rejected, moral evaluation is not optional. The bishops’ own summary grounds the Church’s “cause” as defense of human life and dignity and protection of the weak and vulnerable—which is the ethical basis for engagement without partisanship.
Putting the sources together yields a practical framework for parishes, diocesan offices, and clergy:
A Catholic parish that follows this framework will typically:
Catholic churches balance engagement and neutrality by affirming citizens’ duty to participate for the common good, while insisting that Church leaders do not champion candidates or parties, focusing instead on moral teaching, conscience formation, and principled dialogue aimed at protecting human life and dignity—thereby engaging politics without becoming partisan or being used by it.