[Antichurch] Bishops Invoke Pilgrimage Against Border Wall While Silent on Supernatural Kingship
Bishops Invoke “Religious Freedom” to Defend Shrine While Bordering on Modernist Naturalism
NCR portal reports that Bishops Peter Baldacchino and Mark J. Seitz have called the faithful to a prayer pilgrimage at Mount Cristo Rey, New Mexico, on June 28, in response to the federal government’s plan to seize land for a border wall. The article presents the event as a defense of a Catholic shrine and frames the conflict as a matter of religious freedom, with the diocese filing legal opposition based on the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The shrine, crowned by a statue of Christ the King, has served as a place of devotion for nearly a century. The entire episode reveals the utter bankruptcy of post-conciliar “Catholicism,” which reduces the public reign of Christ the King to a merely naturalistic, humanitarian gesture, while ignoring the true supernatural kingship that demands the submission of all nations—including their immigration policies—to the Catholic Faith.
A Christ the King Statue Without the Kingship of Christ
The article’s setting is saturated with profound irony. The shrine in question is capped by a 29-foot statue of Jesus Christ the King—a title instituted by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Quas Primas precisely to remind nations that Christ’s authority extends over all human societies, and that rulers must “publicly honor Christ and obey Him” in the enactment of laws and the administration of justice. Pius XI explicitly taught that Christ’s kingdom “encompasses also all non-Christians, so that most truly the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ” (Quas Primas, 1925). Yet the bishops in this affair invoke the title of Christ the King while simultaneously operating within a purely naturalistic framework of “religious freedom,” “human rights,” and “Catholic values”—terms that, in the post-conciliar lexicon, are invariably detached from the supernatural order and the Church’s divinely given mission to convert all nations to the Catholic Faith.
Bishop Baldacchino declares:
“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.”
This statement is a capitulation to the modernist separation of Church and State. The Catholic teaching, consistently affirmed by the pre-conciliar Magisterium, holds that the State is not “within its rights” to act independently of God’s law and the Church’s moral authority. Pope Pius IX, in the Syllabus of Errors, condemned the proposition that “the civil power may prevent the prelates of the Church and the faithful from communicating freely and mutually with the Roman Pontiff” (Error 49) and that “kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction” (Error 54). By granting the government an autonomous right to “secure its border” without reference to Catholic moral teaching on the treatment of migrants, the bishops implicitly accept the very laicism that Pius XI condemned as the root of societal disorder: “When God and Jesus Christ… were removed from laws and states… the foundations of that authority were destroyed” (Quas Primas).
The Reduction of Catholic Doctrine to “Values” and “Religious Freedom”
The article repeatedly invokes “Catholic values and teachings” as the basis for opposing the border wall, stating that the wall is
“a physical symbol of the Government’s dehumanizing treatment of migrants writ large.”
This language is revealing. The Church’s perennial teaching does not speak of “Catholic values”—a term borrowed from the secular, relativistic lexicon—but of Catholic doctrine, binding on all men and nations. The reduction of divine revelation to “values” is a hallmark of Modernism, condemned by Pope St. Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu: the proposition that “dogmas of faith should be understood according to their practical function, i.e., as binding in action, rather than as principles of belief” (Proposition 26) was formally rejected. The post-conciliar Church has systematically replaced dogma with “values,” and supernatural faith with humanitarian sentiment.
Similarly, the invocation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment as the primary legal weapons exposes the conciliar Church’s complete capitulation to the Americanist framework. The pre-conciliar Church taught that error has no rights, and that the Catholic State has the duty to restrict the public exercise of false religions for the good of souls. Pope Pius IX condemned the proposition that “it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State” (Error 77). The post-conciliar “bishops,” by contrast, fight for the “right” of the Church to maintain a shrine—not for the right of Christ the King to rule over the nation according to His laws. The shrine is defended as a devotional site, not as a public acknowledgment of Christ’s social kingship. This is the difference between Catholicism and naturalistic humanitarianism.
Silence on the Supernatural: No Mention of Conversion, Grace, or Final Judgment
The most damning feature of the article—and of the bishops’ statements—is what is entirely absent. There is no mention of the supernatural end of human life, the necessity of sanctifying grace, the duty of the State to favor the true religion, or the reality of final judgment. The “spiritual value” of the site is invoked, but only in terms of its role in “bringing many people in our community to God”—a phrase that, in the post-conciliar context, means nothing more than a vague, naturalistic theism devoid of dogmatic content.
Pius XI, in instituting the Feast of Christ the King, explicitly stated that the annual celebration would remind states “that not only private individuals, but also rulers and governments have the duty to publicly honor Christ and obey Him: for it will remind them of the final judgment, in which Christ… will very severely avenge these insults” (Quas Primas). The bishops of Las Cruces and El Paso, standing in the shadow of a statue of Christ the King, have nothing to say about the final judgment, the social reign of Christ, or the duty of the nation to submit to the Catholic Faith. Their concern is limited to preserving a shrine—a place of popular devotion—while the nation’s laws remain unchallenged in their fundamental hostility to the moral law.
The Pilgrimage as Political Theater
The call to “prayer and pilgrimage” at Mount Cristo Rey is presented as a spiritual response to a political conflict. Yet the prayer is entirely naturalistic: Bishop Baldacchino states that participants will
“pray for Dioceses of Las Cruces and El Paso, and for our government and its leaders.”
Prayer for civil authorities is, of course, a Catholic practice—but it must be ordered toward their conversion and their submission to Christ’s kingship, not merely for “good governance” in a secular sense. The bishops’ prayer, as reported, contains no hint that the government’s immigration policies are subject to the moral law of God, or that the nation has a duty to order itself according to Catholic teaching. It is the prayer of a Church that has accepted its permanent minority status in a pluralistic society—precisely the situation that the pre-conciliar popes condemned as incompatible with the social reign of Christ the King.
Furthermore, the pilgrimage is organized in coordination with the “Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande”—a Protestant body. Bishop Michael Buerkel Hunn filed a declaration in support of the Las Cruces Diocese’s challenge. This ecumenical collaboration, unthinkable before 1958, is now presented as a matter of course. The defense of a Catholic shrine becomes an occasion for interfaith solidarity, further demonstrating that the post-conciliar Church has abandoned the Catholic principle that only the true Church of Christ possesses the fullness of truth and that dialogue with heretics and schismatics must always be ordered toward their conversion, not toward common political action.
Canon Law as Bureaucratic Obstacle, Not Divine Ordinance
Bishop Baldacchino notes that the seizure of the land would place him “at odds with canon law,” explaining that any sale would require Vatican approval and “inclusion of legal restrictions” to prevent the land from being used contrary to Catholic teaching. This statement reduces canon law to a mere administrative code—a bureaucratic hurdle rather than the juridical expression of the Church’s divine constitution. The pre-conciliar Church understood canon law as an extension of the moral law, binding in conscience and ordered toward the salvation of souls. The post-conciliar “bishop” invokes it as a legal technicality in an American court proceeding, indistinguishable from any other property dispute.
Moreover, the very fact that the “Vatican” must approve the sale of diocesan property reveals the centralized, bureaucratic nature of the conciliar Church—a structure that bears little resemblance to the organic, hierarchical society established by Christ, in which each bishop governed his flock with true jurisdiction under the supreme authority of the Pope. The post-conciliar “Vatican” is a diplomatic entity, not the seat of the successor of Peter.
Conclusion: The Abomination of Desolation in the Shadow of Christ the King
The Mount Cristo Rey affair is a microcosm of the post-conciliar apostasy. A statue of Christ the King stands atop a mountain, but the bishops who gather at its base have no intention of demanding that the nation submit to His kingship. They invoke “religious freedom” in a secular court, collaborate with Protestants, reduce Catholic doctrine to “values,” and pray for “our government” without calling for its conversion. The shrine is defended as a cultural and devotional treasure, not as a public confession that Jesus Christ is Lord and King over all nations.
This is the fruit of the conciliar revolution: a Church that has exchanged the supernatural mission of converting souls and nations for the naturalistic role of a humanitarian NGO, defending its “sacred spaces” within a secular order it no longer challenges. The statue of Christ the King at Mount Cristo Rey has become a monument to the very error Pius XI sought to combat—the removal of Christ from the laws and constitutions of nations, while maintaining the empty form of His title.
“Then at last,” to use the words which our predecessor Leo XIII addressed to all bishops 25 years ago, “so many wounds can be healed, then there will be hope that the law will regain its former authority, sweet peace will return again, swords and weapons will fall from hands, when all willingly accept the reign of Christ and obey Him, and every tongue will confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father” (Quas Primas). Until that reign is publicly acknowledged—not merely in shrines, but in the laws and institutions of the nation—every “pilgrimage” and “prayer” remains a gesture of profound spiritual bankruptcy.
Source:
Bishops plan Mass on pilgrimage mountain Trump administration seeks to seize (ncronline.org)
Date: 26.06.2026