WASHINGTON — The contrast has always struck some people as a particularly unfair one: In the runup to Election Day, reverends in some churches — often with large black congregations — speak favorably of certain candidates, while priests in Catholic churches are muzzled by fears of losing tax-exempt status.

Now Congressman Walter Jones, R-N.C., is trying again with a new version of his Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act. The bill, HR 235, would allow priests, ministers and other clergymen to speak freely about political issues and legislation from the pulpit, and even to endorse political candidates.

Under current law, churches risk losing their 501(c)3 tax-exempt status if their leaders engage in political activity, as defined by the IRS, during church services and events. Priests and others are currently free to discuss the substance of political issues such as abortion.

Last October another version of the bill was defeated in the U.S. House 178 to 239. Opponents included influential House leaders such as Bill Thomas, R-Calif., chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which oversees tax legislation. This year, Jones, a convert to the Catholic faith, hopes for a better result.

“We had hearings last year so we may not have hearings again this year. But I think we will have a floor vote,” Jones said. “The leadership is supportive of the bill.”

The most influential House leader, Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, is an original cosponsor of the bill.

The bill differs from last year's version in order to eliminate what critics called ambiguities that might have allowed churches to raise money for political candidates.

Colby May, director of the Amer ican Center for Law and Jus -tice's Washington, office and a consultant to Jones’ office, said the bill's language has a new section.

The main section of the bill says the IRS cannot withdraw taxexempt status from a church “because of the content, preparation or presentation of any homily, sermon, teaching, dialectic or other presentation made during religious services or gatherings.”

“We're simply saying that what is said from the pulpit or the altar of the Mass is sacrosanct,” May said.

“I think it's a great idea,” said Father Peter West, priest associate at Priests for Life, of Jones’ proposal. “I think that churches should be free to be involved in political issues.”

He said many priests refrain from saying anything about political issues because they believe, falsely, they could land themselves in legal trouble.

“This will lift the psychological veil,” he said. Asked if he himself would endorse political candidates if Jones’ bill passes, he replied, “Probably not. But I think I should be legally allowed to do so.”

Priests for Life's Father Frank Pavone sent a fax to priests and pastors on Feb. 27 asking for support for Jones’ bill. In it, he quoted the Second Vatican Council constitution Gaudium et Spes (The Church in the Modern World), which states: “At all times and in all places, the Church should have the true freedom to teach the faith, to proclaim its teaching about society, to carry out its task among men without hindrance and to pass moral judgment, even in matters relating to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it.”

Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and also a member of President Bush's U.S. Commission on International Religious Free -dom, said he favors the bill.

“We [southern Baptists] do not think that pastors should endorse candidates. We would discourage our churches from doing so,” he said. “But we believe that this is a church matter, not a state matter.”

Was Not Always So

When Lyndon B. Johnson was in the Senate in 1954, according to Jones, he slipped the prohibition into law without debate. “He wanted to silence some of his critics in Texas,” Jones said. “Before 1954, pastors were free to say what they wanted.”

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State opposes the bill. Rob Boston, assistant director of communications, said only one church has ever lost its tax-exempt status because of political activity.

“Tax exemption is not a constitutional right,” he said, adding that Jones’ bill could be unconstitutional from Americans United's perspective. “Exempting only houses of worship is a form of preferential treatment.”

He rejected arguments made by some of the bill's supporters that Democratic-leaning churches, such as those in black inner-city areas, already violate the law with im -punity because the IRS winks at them and Jones’ bill will grant freedom to more conservative churches.

“No one knows exactly what's going on,” he said. “The IRS investigates these things confidentially.”

He noted that in 2000, the IRS reprimanded former Congressman Floyd Flake, D-N.Y., now a black church pastor in New York City, for endorsing Al Gore from the pulpit, demonstrating the IRS sometimes pursues black churches. Flake has endorsed Jones’ bill. Boston said Americans United reports both politically liberal and conservative churches to the IRS for political activity.

Americans United has sent letters to religious leaders during election seasons in order to discourage them from engaging in political activity. One dated October 2000 says, “Federal tax law, which governs the activities of houses of worship, prohibits churches from engaging in partisan politics on behalf of or in opposition to candidates. The IRS has already revoked the tax-exempt status of one church that violated this provision.”

May of the American Center for Law and Justice claimed Americans United targets churches that disagree with its ideological views.

“Partisan groups are using the regulations as a mechanism to silence certain churches,” he said, adding that policing pastors’ speech does not decrease but increases government's involvement in churches.

Though tax exemption may not be a constitutional right, he noted the tax code says it is granted because “churches uniquely and charities generally provide services that the government could not provide. Government should not be entangled in the affairs of the church.”

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops declined to take a position on the first Jones bill, said Bill Ryan, deputy director of communications at the bishops’ conference.

“We haven't said anything or done anything about it yet,” he said. “If it comes closer to achieving action [in Congress], we will examine it more.”

Joseph D'Agostino writes from Washington, D.C.