[[Bill D: In my interminable role as self-appointed logician, I will point out a couple of premises embedded in the priest's declaration.

1)The Catholic church should be the acknowledged authority on moral law in the world...for everyone.

2)Catholics are required to insert religion ahead of everything else, even in matters of choosing what is defined in the Constitution as a non-religious post. (I would assume that even if a candidate advocated nuclear bombing of Mecca, that would take 2nd place to his position on abortion.)(or maybe if the priest discovered enough evils in all candidates, Catholics would be prohibited from voting at all!)

3) He suggests that he is qualified to speak for the Catholic church on these matters.]]

Embedded in the priest's declaration is also the premise that:

4) If the Catholic Church disagrees with ONE policy of candidate X, a Catholic cannot in good faith support candidate X over candidates Y and Z -- even if candidate X's political stances are more in keeping with The Church's teachings than candidates Y's and Z's are.

Even a Catholic who believes all abortions should be outlawed at all stages of pregnancy, regardless of concerns for the mother's health or life, might still in good conscience support a Presidential candidate who believes in "abortion on demand." (Obama does not, by the way.) Abortion is not the only issue that has "moral" or religious implications and ramifications.   

If a Protestant Church engages in blatantly political activity, that church can be stripped of it's tax-free status without the entire denomination being so penalized. Some churches have, in fact, been threatened with such action just for openly advocating an end to the occupation of Iraq.    I would think that the parish of this particular priest could similarly be stripped of tax-exempt status for such openly partisan, political actions.   

Barnacle, I don't see how this priest's behavior could be seen as mere "speech" and not "political advocacy."   He is not merely expressing his own opinion (which he is entitled to do, in an unofficial capacity -- and even from the pulpit if it's opinion on issues, rather than candidates or parties). He is going beyond "advocacy" to actually punishing parishioners for their political preferences/voting.   That's about as clear an attempt at "establishment" of a state religion as you can get.