The National Catholic Register reports that Bishop Peter Baldacchino of Las Cruces plans to climb Mount Cristo Rey and celebrate Mass at its summit in response to the federal government’s attempt to seize diocesan land for border wall construction. The diocese claims this would desecrate a sacred site and impede religious practice. The government filed a civil action to exercise eminent domain over the property for border security structures, and a district court has already ruled the government can deposit $183,071 pending resolution of the dispute. Bishop Baldacchino frames this as a non-political matter of “preserving and defending a sanctuary” and invites the faithful to join in prayer and pilgrimage on June 28. This entire episode reveals the bankruptcy of post-conciliar “Catholic” leadership, which has reduced the Faith to a tool for political theater while lacking the supernatural fortitude to defend the Church’s rights from genuine persecution.
The Absence of Supernatural Faith
Bishop Baldacchino’s response to the federal government’s encroachment upon diocesan property is a spectacle of naturalism masquerading as pastoral action. Rather than placing the matter squarely within the framework of the Church’s divine rights and the primacy of spiritual over temporal authority, he reduces a profound spiritual crisis to a civic dispute. His statement, “This is not a matter of politics, but a matter of preserving and defending a sanctuary and devotion which has brought many people in our community to God,” is a masterwork of evasion. By denying the political dimension of an inherently political act—the government’s seizure of land—he obscures the fundamental conflict between the reign of Christ the King and the secular state.
Pius XI in Quas Primas taught with absolute clarity: “The rulers of states must not refuse public veneration and obedience to the reigning Christ, but must fulfill this duty themselves and with their people, if they wish to maintain their authority inviolate and contribute to the increase of their homeland’s happiness.” The encyclical further warns: “When God and Jesus Christ—as we lamented—were removed from laws and states and when authority was derived not from God but from men, the foundations of that authority were destroyed.” Bishop Baldacchino’s approach embodies this very error. He treats Christ the King as a mere cultural artifact, a statue on a mountain to be “preserved” through negotiation with temporal powers, rather than the sovereign Lord whose authority no government may transgress.
The Hermeneutic of Conciliar Capitulation
The post-conciliar Church has systematically abandoned the Church’s traditional teaching on her independence from secular authority. The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 188.4, explicitly stated that any office becomes vacant if a cleric “publicly defects from the Catholic faith.” The conciliar revolution has produced bishops who, while not formally heretical in every utterance, have defected from the public profession of the Church’s rights and supernatural mission. Bishop Baldacchino’s framing of the dispute—“Our government is within its rights to secure its border, however, our Diocese is defending itself against the means by which the government now seeks to do so”—is a capitulation dressed in diplomatic language. He concedes the government’s “right” to seize property, merely quibbling over the “means.”
This is the fruit of the very errors condemned in the Syllabus of Errors. Proposition 19 states: “The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free—nor is she endowed with proper and perpetual rights of her own, conferred upon her by her Divine Founder; but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church, and the limits within which she may exercise those rights.” Bishop Baldacchino’s statement implicitly accepts this condemned proposition by treating the Church’s property rights as subject to the state’s determination through eminent domain.
The Devaluation of the Sacred
The Mount Cristo Rey shrine, with its 29-foot statue of Christ, is described by Bishop Baldacchino as a place where “Christ the King, with open arms, rises above two countries.” Yet his planned Mass on the mountain is not an act of reparation or a solemn profession of Christ’s kingship over nations. It is a political demonstration, a media event designed to generate sympathy for the diocese’s property claim. The sacred is instrumentalized for a temporal purpose.
This reflects the broader post-conciliar degradation of worship. The Mass, the unbloody perpetuation of the sacrifice of Calvary, has been reduced in practice to a communal assembly, a “celebration” in the most banal sense. When Bishop Baldacchino climbs Mount Cristo Rey to celebrate Mass, he is not restoring Christ to His rightful place over the nations. He is using a sacred rite as a prop in a political drama. The true Quas Primas spirit would demand that he publicly profess that no government has the right to seize what is dedicated to Christ the King, and that the faithful must resist such encroachment as a matter of religious obligation, not merely civic preference.
The Silence on Ultimate Authority
The gravest omission in Bishop Baldacchino’s letter is any acknowledgment of the Church’s divine constitution and her supreme authority in spiritual matters, which extends to the temporal order insofar as it relates to the salvation of souls. Pius XI in Quas Primas declared: “The Church, established by Christ as a perfect society, demands for itself by a right belonging to it, which it cannot renounce, full freedom and independence from secular authority, and that in fulfilling the mission entrusted to it by God—to teach, govern, and lead all to eternal happiness, those who belong to the Kingdom of Christ—it cannot depend on anyone’s will.”
Bishop Baldacchino makes no such claim. He does not invoke the Church’s divine right to her property. He does not remind the government that the Church’s mission transcends borders and that the spiritual welfare of the faithful cannot be subordinated to secular security concerns. Instead, he asks the faithful to “pray for our government and its leaders”—a sentiment that, while superficially pious, in this context functions as a surrender of the Church’s prophetic voice. The Church does not pray for governments as a substitute for asserting her rights; she prays for them precisely so that they may recognize the authority of Christ, not so that she may accommodate their encroachments.
The Post-Conciliar Bishop as Civic Leader
Bishop Baldacchino’s actions are entirely consistent with the model of the post-conciliar bishop as civic interlocutor rather than shepherd of souls. His letter is addressed not to the faithful as members of the Mystical Body of Christ, but as stakeholders in a community dispute. The invitation to “join in prayer and pilgrimage” is extended in the context of a property dispute, not a spiritual crisis. The faithful are mobilized not to do penance, not to make reparation for the sins of the nation, but to support the diocese’s legal position.
This is the antithesis of the episcopal office as understood by the pre-conciliar Church. St. Robert Bellarmine, in De Romano Pontifice, taught that the Church is a perfect society, complete in herself, possessing all necessary means to her end. The bishop, as a successor of the Apostles, is not a community organizer or a political advocate. He is a teacher, a governor, and a sanctifier. His primary duty is to lead souls to eternal salvation, not to negotiate with the federal government over land use.
Conclusion: The Triumph of Naturalism
Bishop Baldacchino’s Mount Cristo Rey pilgrimage is a perfect microcosm of the post-conciliar debacle. A bishop, confronted with an act of state aggression against Church property, responds with a political demonstration wrapped in religious language. He concedes the government’s authority, reduces the sacred to a cultural artifact, mobilizes the faithful for a temporal cause, and omits any profession of the Church’s divine rights. This is not the action of a successor of the Apostles. It is the action of a functionary of the conciliar sect, a man formed by the very errors condemned by Pius IX, Pius X, and Pius XI.
The true response to such a crisis would be a solemn act of reparation, a public profession of the social kingship of Christ, and an uncompromising assertion of the Church’s independence from secular power. Instead, we receive a hike up a mountain and a press conference disguised as Mass. The faithful must pray for their bishops, for they have been led not to the summit of Mount Cristo Rey, but into the valley of confusion and capitulation.
Bishop Baldacchino’s Pilgrimage: A Political Act Disguised as Piety
The National Catholic Register reports that Bishop Peter Baldacchino of Las Cruces plans to climb Mount Cristo Rey and celebrate Mass at its summit in response to the federal government’s attempt to seize diocesan land for border wall construction. The diocese claims this would desecrate a sacred site and impede religious practice. The government filed a civil action to exercise eminent domain over the property for border security structures, and a district court has already ruled the government can deposit $183,071 pending resolution of the dispute. Bishop Baldacchino frames this as a non-political matter of “preserving and defending a sanctuary” and invites the faithful to join in prayer and pilgrimage on June 28. This entire episode reveals the bankruptcy of post-conciliar “Catholic” leadership, which has reduced the Faith to a tool for political theater while lacking the supernatural fortitude to defend the Church’s rights from genuine persecution.
The Absence of Supernatural Faith
Bishop Baldacchino’s response to the federal government’s encroachment upon diocesan property is a spectacle of naturalism masquerading as pastoral action. Rather than placing the matter squarely within the framework of the Church’s divine rights and the primacy of spiritual over temporal authority, he reduces a profound spiritual crisis to a civic dispute. His statement, “This is not a matter of politics, but a matter of preserving and defending a sanctuary and devotion which has brought many people in our community to God,” is a masterwork of evasion. By denying the political dimension of an inherently political act—the government’s seizure of land—he obscures the fundamental conflict between the reign of Christ the King and the secular state.
Pius XI in Quas Primas taught with absolute clarity: “The rulers of states must not refuse public veneration and obedience to the reigning Christ, but must fulfill this duty themselves and with their people, if they wish to maintain their authority inviolate and contribute to the increase of their homeland’s happiness.” The encyclical further warns: “When God and Jesus Christ—as we lamented—were removed from laws and states and when authority was derived not from God but from men, the foundations of that authority were destroyed.” Bishop Baldacchino’s approach embodies this very error. He treats Christ the King as a mere cultural artifact, a statue on a mountain to be “preserved” through negotiation with temporal powers, rather than the sovereign Lord whose authority no government may transgress.
The Hermeneutic of Conciliar Capitulation
The post-conciliar Church has systematically abandoned the Church’s traditional teaching on her independence from secular authority. The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 188.4, explicitly stated that any office becomes vacant if a cleric “publicly defects from the Catholic faith.” The conciliar revolution has produced bishops who, while not formally heretical in every utterance, have defected from the public profession of the Church’s rights and supernatural mission. Bishop Baldacchino’s framing of the dispute—“Our government is within its rights to secure its border, however, our Diocese is defending itself against the means by which the government now seeks to do so”—is a capitulation dressed in diplomatic language. He concedes the government’s “right” to seize property, merely quibbling over the “means.”
This is the fruit of the very errors condemned in the Syllabus of Errors. Proposition 19 states: “The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free—nor is she endowed with proper and perpetual rights of her own, conferred upon her by her Divine Founder; but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church, and the limits within which she may exercise those rights.” Bishop Baldacchino’s statement implicitly accepts this condemned proposition by treating the Church’s property rights as subject to the state’s determination through eminent domain.
The Devaluation of the Sacred
The Mount Cristo Rey shrine, with its 29-foot statue of Christ, is described by Bishop Baldacchino as a place where “Christ the King, with open arms, rises above two countries.” Yet his planned Mass on the mountain is not an act of reparation or a solemn profession of Christ’s kingship over nations. It is a political demonstration, a media event designed to generate sympathy for the diocese’s property claim. The sacred is instrumentalized for a temporal purpose.
This reflects the broader post-conciliar degradation of worship. The Mass, the unbloody perpetuation of the sacrifice of Calvary, has been reduced in practice to a communal assembly, a “celebration” in the most banal sense. When Bishop Baldacchino climbs Mount Cristo Rey to celebrate Mass, he is not restoring Christ to His rightful place over the nations. He is using a sacred rite as a prop in a political drama. The true Quas Primas spirit would demand that he publicly profess that no government has the right to seize what is dedicated to Christ the King, and that the faithful must resist such encroachment as a matter of religious obligation, not merely civic preference.
The Silence on Ultimate Authority
The gravest omission in Bishop Baldacchino’s letter is any acknowledgment of the Church’s divine constitution and her supreme authority in spiritual matters, which extends to the temporal order insofar as it relates to the salvation of souls. Pius XI in Quas Primas declared: “The Church, established by Christ as a perfect society, demands for itself by a right belonging to it, which it cannot renounce, full freedom and independence from secular authority, and that in fulfilling the mission entrusted to it by God—to teach, govern, and lead all to eternal happiness, those who belong to the Kingdom of Christ—it cannot depend on anyone’s will.”
Bishop Baldacchino makes no such claim. He does not invoke the Church’s divine right to her property. He does not remind the government that the Church’s mission transcends borders and that the spiritual welfare of the faithful cannot be subordinated to secular security concerns. Instead, he asks the faithful to “pray for our government and its leaders”—a sentiment that, while superficially pious, in this context functions as a surrender of the Church’s prophetic voice. The Church does not pray for governments as a substitute for asserting her rights; she prays for them precisely so that they may recognize the authority of Christ, not so that she may accommodate their encroachments.
The Post-Conciliar Bishop as Civic Leader
Bishop Baldacchino’s actions are entirely consistent with the model of the post-conciliar bishop as civic interlocutor rather than shepherd of souls. His letter is addressed not to the faithful as members of the Mystical Body of Christ, but as stakeholders in a community dispute. The invitation to “join in prayer and pilgrimage” is extended in the context of a property dispute, not a spiritual crisis. The faithful are mobilized not to do penance, not to make reparation for the sins of the nation, but to support the diocese’s legal position.
This is the antithesis of the episcopal office as understood by the pre-conciliar Church. St. Robert Bellarmine, in De Romano Pontifice, taught that the Church is a perfect society, complete in herself, possessing all necessary means to her end. The bishop, as a successor of the Apostles, is not a community organizer or a political advocate. He is a teacher, a governor, and a sanctifier. His primary duty is to lead souls to eternal salvation, not to negotiate with the federal government over land use.
Conclusion: The Triumph of Naturalism
Bishop Baldacchino’s Mount Cristo Rey pilgrimage is a perfect microcosm of the post-conciliar debacle. A bishop, confronted with an act of state aggression against Church property, responds with a political demonstration wrapped in religious language. He concedes the government’s authority, reduces the sacred to a cultural artifact, mobilizes the faithful for a temporal cause, and omits any profession of the Church’s divine rights. This is not the action of a successor of the Apostles. It is the action of a functionary of the conciliar sect, a man formed by the very errors condemned by Pius IX, Pius X, and Pius XI.
The true response to such a crisis would be a solemn act of reparation, a public profession of the social kingship of Christ, and an uncompromising assertion of the Church’s independence from secular power. Instead, we receive a hike up a mountain and a press conference disguised as Mass. The faithful must pray for their bishops, for they have been led not to the summit of Mount Cristo Rey, but into the valley of confusion and capitulation.
Source:
Bishop Baldacchino to Climb Mount Cristo Rey As the Government Moves to Seize Diocesan Land (ncregister.com)
Date: 25.06.2026