Conciliar Prelate Endorses Mosque Construction Citing Heretical Vatican II Religious Liberty
The National Catholic Register portal reports that the “archbishop” of Santa Fe, John Charles Wester, has publicly endorsed the construction of a mosque in Albuquerque, invoking the Second Vatican Council’s declaration Dignitatis Humanae to assert a “God-given right” for Muslims to worship freely. He condemns opposition to the mosque as “anti-Muslim sentiment” incompatible with the Gospel, while a representative of the Council on American-Islamic Relations praises his “principled statement.” This capitulation to religious indifferentism exposes the conciliar sect’s definitive rupture with the Social Kingship of Christ and the immutable doctrine of the Catholic Church.
The Heresy of Religious Liberty as Constitutional Dogma
The cited article reveals the “archbishop” grounding his support for a mosque explicitly on Dignitatis Humanae, the Vatican II declaration that “every person must be free from coercion in matters of faith” and that this principle “applies universally… not limited to Catholics or Christians; it extends fully to Muslims, Jews, and all people.” This is the formal heresy of indifferentism and latitudinarianism, solemnly condemned by the authentic Magisterium. Pope Pius IX, in the Syllabus of Errors (1864), anathematized the proposition that “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true” (Error 15) and that “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation” (Error 16). The “archbishop” does not merely tolerate error; he sacralizes it, declaring the construction of a temple to a false god—a place where the Most Holy Trinity is denied and Christ is reduced to a mere prophet—to be “entirely consistent with our own tradition and moral commitments.” This is haeresis pertinacis: the obstinate denial of the truth that extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and that the State has the duty to profess the true religion and protect the Church’s rights (Quas Primas, 31).
Usurpation of Christ’s Kingship Over Society
Pope Pius XI, in Quas Primas (1925), teaches that “the reign of Christ encompasses also all non-Christians, so that most truly the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ” (28). He warns that “when God and Jesus Christ were removed from laws and states… the foundations of that authority were destroyed” (31). The “archbishop” inverts this doctrine: he subordinates the Kingship of Christ to the Masonic-Liberal dogma of “constitutionally protected religious freedom.” By asserting that Muslims have a “God-given right to worship freely,” he attributes to the Author of Truth a positive will for the propagation of error. St. Pius X, in Lamentabili Sane Exitu (1907), condemned the Modernist error that “The Church cannot, in any way, pass judgment on opinions concerning human abilities” (Prop. 5) and that “Faith, as assent of the mind, is ultimately based on a sum of probabilities” (Prop. 25). The “archbishop” acts as a functionary of the secular state, not a successor of the Apostles. He renders to Caesar what belongs to God: the souls of men and the public order of society.
The Mosque as Abominatio Desolationis in the Public Square
The article details the approval of the “Albuquerque Islamic Center” by a civil planning commission, noting the “archbishop” felt “compelled to speak clearly and pastorally” in its favor. Catholic theology, rooted in the First Commandment and the dogmatic decree Firmiter of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), teaches that public worship is due to the one true God alone. To support the erection of a mosque—where the divinity of Christ is blasphemed five times daily—is to cooperate materially and formally in cultus falsus. Pope Leo XIII, in Immortale Dei (1885), teaches that the State “cannot assume the attitude of neutrality… without the greatest injustice to God” because “it is a sin in the State not to have care for religion as a duty binding it most strictly.” The “archbishop” celebrates the very “separation of Church and State” condemned by Pius IX as “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church” (Syllabus, Error 55). He calls “hospitality” what the Church has always called communicatio in sacris and scandalum.
The “Archbishop” as Agent of the Conciliar Revolution
The rhetoric of the statement—“respect, dialogue, and peaceful coexistence,” “We do not need to share the same beliefs to share the same neighborhood,” “interfaith relationships enrich our civic life”—is the vernacular of the Masonic Fraternité, not the language of the Regnum Christi. It echoes the condemned proposition of the Syllabus: “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” (Error 80). This “archbishop,” validly ordained (if at all) in the new rite of Paul VI—a rite per se invalid due to defect of form and intention—exercises no jurisdiction. He is a hireling (mercenarius) placed over the ruins of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe by the usurpers in the Vatican. His “pastoral” concern extends to the “dignity” of Muslims but is silent on the salus animarum, the conversion of infidels, the Social Reign of Christ the King, and the eternal damnation awaiting those who die outside the Ark of Salvation. “Fear of the other is not a Christian virtue,” he claims, inverting the timor Domini which is “the beginning of wisdom” (Ps 110:10).
Systemic Apostasy of the Conciliar Sect
This incident is not an aberration but the logical fruit of the conciliar revolution. The “archbishop” implements the nouvelle théologie of Dignitatis Humanae, which the Defense of Sedevacantism file correctly identifies as part of the manifest heresy that deprives the post-1958 claimants to the papacy of office ipso facto (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice: “A Pope who is a manifest heretic, by that very fact ceases to be Pope and head… he ceases to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church”). By teaching that the State must grant equal rights to false worship, the “archbishop” adheres to a doctrine “contrary to the divine constitution of the Church” (Pius IX, Allocution to the Bishops of Prussia). The “canonization” of the architects of this revolution by the antipope Francis (Bergoglio) and his successor, the antipope Leo XIV (Prevost), seals the sect’s identity as the “abomination of desolation” (Mt 24:15) standing in the holy place.
No Rights for Error: The Immutable Catholic Principle
The article quotes the CAIR director, Ibrahim Hooper, thanking the “archbishop” for defending “a fundamental and inalienable right of every American and every human being.” This is the language of the Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789), not the Syllabus. The true Church, as Pius XI teaches, “demands for itself by a right belonging to it, which it cannot renounce, full freedom and independence from secular authority” (Quas Primas, 31)—freedom to teach the truth, not license for error. Error has no rights (error non habet ius); only truth has rights. The “archbishop” has betrayed his munus docendi to become a chaplain of the Masonic Republic. The faithful remnant must recognize that no obedience is due to pastors who “preach another gospel” (Gal 1:8), who build up the kingdom of Satan while demolishing the Kingdom of Christ. “You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men” (1 Cor 7:23).
Source:
Archbishop Wester Defends Proposed Mosque in New Mexico, Criticizes ‘Anti-Muslim Sentiment’ (ncregister.com)
Date: 29.07.2026