Catholic priest supported candidates from the pulpit, a legal no-no

A week before the general elections, worshipers at the St. Gertrude the Great Catholic Church in Bell Gardens were listening to the parish announcements when Father Nabor Rios introduced a political candidate.

“I’m not saying to vote for her,” he told people, pausing. “Well, I am saying to vote for her, but Isabel is gonna run…Párate mija [stand up my daughter].”

Attending Sunday Mass that Oct. 27 was Isabel Guillen, one of several candidates running for the Bell Gardens City Council. As she stood up, Rios continued to address worshipers.

“Isabel is gonna run for City Council,” he said, prompting people to applaud.

On Oct. 29, Rios took to his Facebook account, which is linked to the church’s website, to support Guillen and her running mate, Jennifer Rodriguez.

On Oct. 29, a week before the general elections, Rev. Nabor Rios of St. Gertrude the Great Catholic Church in Bell Gardens posted his support for political candidates on his Facebook account that is tied to the church’s website. The posts were made after telling worshipers to vote for one of the two candidates two days earlier, a violation of a federal law that prohibits tax-exemption organizations from campaigning for or against a candidate running for public office. He has since removed the posts.

(Facebook)

A week later, voters elected Guillen to the Bell Gardens City Council but not Rodriguez.

It’s unclear how much sway Rios had on voters, but the endorsements appeared to violate a federal law from 1954 that prohibits religious organizations and nonprofits from endorsing or opposing political candidates, which President Trump may once again attempt to repeal amid Republican control of Congress.

The Johnson Amendment — named after sponsor Lyndon B. Johnson, who was a Democratic senator from Texas at the time — states that all nonprofit organizations are “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for elective public office,” according to the Internal Revenue Service.

Rebecca Markert, vice president and legal director at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said St. Gertrude could lose its tax-exempt status for violating the law.

“He said the magic words: ‘I think you should vote for this person,’” she said. “He clearly violated [the law] and I think he knew he was violating it.”

Yannina Diaz, spokesperson for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, said in a written response to The Times that it has strict guidelines regarding lobbying and political activities.

“The administrative office of the archdiocese was not aware of the activities or statements made until after they had occurred and directly addressed the matter with Father Nabor,” she wrote. “He has expressed his regret for his lack of understanding of the impact of his actions.”

Rios did not respond to a request for comment, but he removed the campaign posts from his Facebook account after The Times inquired about it with the archdiocese.

Rev. Nabor Rios of St. Gertrude the Great Catholic Church in Bell Gardens appeared to have violated federal law when he endorsed two political candidates on his Facebook account tied to the church. He has since removed the posts.

(Facebook)

Markert said the Facebook posts could pose a problem for the church if the IRS decides to investigate the violation.

“There could be an argument here because the church’s official website links to his Facebook page that has electioneering on it, and he is speaking for the church in that capacity as well,” she said. “It’s a little harder and less clear, but I think given the entire context of what happened a week before the election, I think it was pretty clear he was engaging in [a] Johnson Amendment violation.”

The spokesperson for the archdiocese did not respond to other questions raised by The Times, including allegations that the priest allowed Guillen and Rodriguez to speak to worshipers about their candidacy on church grounds in August.

In an interview with The Times, Guillen and Rodriguez denied they had been allowed to speak to voters on church grounds. Guillen, who is expected to be sworn in next month, said she did not ask Rios to endorse her during Mass.

The Times also sought to confirm whether the archdiocese had received a July 2023 letter addressed to the archbishop in which a church member complained about Rios’ political activities.

“I’m writing because I’m very concerned with what is going on at St. Gertrude in Bell Gardens,” the letter read. “Over the last couple of weeks, Father Nabor has been openly discussing political matters during the homily and during the announcement at the end of Mass.”

At the time, Rios and Rodriguez were among hundreds of residents who opposed an ordinance that would allow cannabis retailers to operate in the city. The measure was approved by the City Council in June 2023.

It was the third time that Rodriguez attempted to run for office. She had previously served on the Bell Gardens City Council until 2019, when a Los Angeles Superior Court judge found she had violated her duties by neglecting to attend meetings for at least 60 consecutive days on two occasions without a valid reason. She was ordered to pay the city more than $29,000 for benefits and pay she received while she was absent.

Michael O’Kelly, city manager for Bell Gardens, said the amount remains outstanding and that a lien on her home had been placed. Rodriguez said that her absences were due to health issues, and that she was unaware of the lien.

The Times obtained a copy of a video of the Oct. 27 Sunday Mass in which Rios is seen endorsing Guillen, along with a second video in which he tells worshipers in Spanish that he had been reprimanded by the archdiocese for speaking about politics. Rios has since removed the videos from his Facebook account.

“The bishop is telling me to stop,” he said in the second video, “And I told him, ‘I’m not going to stop.’ You want to know why? Because we’re more political than Catholic. Many of you love Trump more than Jesus Christ.”

Rodriguez and Guillen defended Rios, saying his actions came from a place of passion for the community he loves and is trying to protect.

“He’s a voter, and like many of us he has concerns,” Guillen said.

Rodriguez accused cannabis interest groups of targeting Rios because he’s spoken against them and because at least one of their candidates lost the election.

“It’s a witch hunt,” she said. “They’re pissed off their candidate was not selected.”

The Johnson Amendment has long been a topic of debate, with some religious broadcasters and other church-affiliated groups arguing that it infringes on their free speech rights. Surveys show, however, that most Americans support the law.

“It’s an incredibly popular law and that makes sense because nobody really likes to be told who to vote for, and people aren’t going to church expecting to hear political lectures,” Markert said. “They’re going to church expecting to worship.”

Experts have also cautioned about removing the law because of the loophole it could create in campaign finance laws. Churches don’t have to disclose their donors to the IRS, so donors could seek to influence elections while remaining anonymous — and get a tax deduction for their contributions.

Still, despite the lack of enforcement by the IRS, conservative and religious groups have sought to remove the Johnson Amendment for many years. They got close in 2016 when Trump vowed to repeal it.

The following year, Trump signed an executive order limiting sanctions against religious organizations for speaking about moral or political issues from a religious perspective.

The order had no meaningful effect on the law, but the return of Trump to the White House, Republican control of the House and Senate, and a conservative majority on the Supreme Court have given religious groups, especially evangelical leaders, hope that the law will soon cease to be a barrier to them.

“I think there are more clergy members violating it and being more brazen about it because I think they see a federal court system that might welcome a challenge to the Johnson Amendment and might be on the side of that,” Markert said. “But I don’t think that everyday Americans want that.”