Bishop Baldacchino to climb Mount Cristo Rey as the government moves to seize diocesan land
Bishop Peter Baldacchino announced a pilgrimage Mass on June 28 atop Mount Cristo Rey to protest the U.S. federal government's eminent domain claim over diocesan land for a border wall. The Diocese of Las Cruces is fighting a federal lawsuit seeking to seize the 29‑foot statue of Christ and shrine site on the mountain, arguing it would desecrate a sacred place and hinder religious practice. The government has filed a civil action and a judge allowed federal funds to be deposited for the land while the dispute proceeds, despite the diocese's request to block the deposit. Baldacchino and Bishop Mark Seitz of El Paso are inviting the faithful to join the pilgrimage and pray for the diocese, the government, and their leaders.
3 months ago
The U.S. federal government has filed an eminent‑domain action to acquire a portion of the Las Cruces Diocese’s property on Mount Cristo Rey in Sunland Park, New Mexico, in order to build about 1.5 miles of border‑security fencing. The diocese says the land includes the 29‑foot limestone statue of Christ and a shrine that have been a place of pilgrimage for nearly a century, and it argues that the seizure would desecrate a sacred site and hinder religious practice. 1
Bishop Peter Baldacchino responded by announcing a public pilgrimage and a Mass he will celebrate at the mountain’s summit on June 28, 2026. He and Bishop Mark Seitz of El Paso invited the faithful to join the climb, emphasizing that the issue is “not a matter of politics” but the protection of a spiritual sanctuary. 2
The government’s civil suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, seeks to “construct, install, operate, and maintain” border‑security structures on the site. On June 15, 2026, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Gonzales ruled that the government may deposit $183,071 “to allow for the safekeeping of funds pending resolution” of the dispute, despite the diocese’s request to block the deposit. citeturn0file1L‑?
Both reports note that Bishop Baldacchino described the mountain as a place where “Christ the King, with open arms, rises above two countries,” and he expressed hope that the pilgrimage and Mass would draw prayers for the dioceses, the government, and its leaders. 2
In summary, the federal government’s attempt to acquire diocesan land for border fencing has prompted Bishop Baldacchino to organize a symbolic climb and Mass on Mount Cristo Rey, framing the conflict as a defense of religious heritage rather than a political dispute, while legal proceedings continue over the eminent‑domain claim and the handling of funds.
Investigate Catholic doctrine on eminent domain and sacred land
Catholic doctrine does not use the modern legal phrase eminent domain, but it does contain a consistent moral and institutional teaching about when public authority may restrict or even expropriate private property for the common good, and about how “sacred places” (and land treated as sacred in a cultural-spiritual sense) must be respected and protected.
Catholic teaching affirms a true right to private property, rooted in the Creator’s intention and ordered to providing for persons and families. It also insists that this right has limits because goods are meant for the human family and because public authorities must protect the common good.
A key line from the social teaching tradition summarized in Towards a Better Distribution of Land states:
“If certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.”
This is the closest doctrinal “template” to eminent domain: public need can justify expropriation, at least in certain circumstances where private hold/use seriously harms the common good.
Catholic doctrine distinguishes between the right of ownership and the use of property. This matters because state action may be morally legitimate when it concerns use in light of necessity for the common good, rather than a blanket disregard of property rights.
In Quadragesimo anno, the Church teaches that:
So, doctrinally, a public authority’s power is not unlimited; it is oriented to necessity for the common good, not to arbitrary interference.
Quadragesimo anno further clarifies that, because ownership is both individual and social, public authorities have a genuine role in specifying duties when necessity demands it:
“To define these duties in detail, when necessity demands it, and the natural law does not prescribe them, is the duty of those who are in charge of the state.”
And:
“what is permitted those who possess property in consideration of the true necessity of the common good, what is illicit in the use of their possessions public authority can decide more accurately, following the dictates of the natural and the divine law.”
Doctrinal bottom line for eminent domain: expropriation or restrictive measures can be morally justified when they respond to “true necessity of the common good” and conform to natural and divine law—not merely convenience, ideology, or favoritism.
The agrarian-reform material does not treat property rights as disposable; it explicitly frames expropriation as something demanded only “sometimes,” in particular circumstances where estates “impede the general prosperity” or produce serious harm.
And Quadragesimo anno emphasizes that commutative justice protects the division of property “as sacred,” indicating that any public measure must respect justice.
In the Latin/Roman Code of Canon Law, “sacred places” have a juridical meaning tied to dedication or blessing for divine worship or for burial of the faithful.
Relevant canons you can use to analyze “sacred land” include:
This means “sacred land,” in the strict ecclesial/legal sense, is not merely “land with a view” or “land used occasionally for faith”; it is land placed under sacred purpose by the Church’s rites and governance.
John Paul II’s letter on pilgrimage to places linked to salvation history explains that Christian worship is meant to reach its summit in Christ, the “new temple,” and that worship “in spirit and truth” surpasses mere material shrines.
Yet he also says sacred places remain important and are intended for liturgical and fraternal life:
“this does not mean that Christians cannot have places of worship… but it must not be forgotten that these are intended only to serve the liturgical and fraternal life of the community.”
And:
“the presence of God by its nature cannot be restricted to any one place, since his presence… pervades all space.”
So Catholic doctrine holds together two things: sacred places are genuinely meaningful (not empty symbols), but they are instrumental to worship, not substitutes for God’s universal presence.
Pope Francis, in Laudato si’, provides a major moral lens for “sacred land” in an indigenous-cultural sense. He teaches that for indigenous communities:
“land is not a commodity but rather a gift from God and from their ancestors who rest there, a sacred space with which they need to interact if they are to maintain their identity and values.”
And when projects are proposed without regard for degradation of nature and culture, pressure is put on indigenous communities to abandon their homelands:
“pressure is being put on them to abandon their homelands to make room for… projects which are undertaken without regard for the degradation of nature and culture.”
Crucially, Francis also links this to participation/dialogue:
indigenous communities “should be the principal dialogue partners, especially when large projects affecting their land are proposed.”
This is directly relevant to any “taking” of land—especially through state-backed development mechanisms—because it demands that the Church recognize the sacredness (or at least the deeply religious-cultural meaning) of land for affected peoples.
If expropriation would touch a church, blessed ground, or cemetery, canon law indicates the Church has clear juridical stakes:
Therefore, Catholic doctrine would treat takings that risk violation of sacred character as morally and juridically serious, requiring strong justification and respect for the Church’s ability to protect worship and burial.
Because the Church allows expropriation only in the context of “true necessity of the common good,” any claim that sacred land must be taken would need to be evaluated against that standard.
And the Church’s teaching on property use/limits implies that even when the common good is invoked, public authorities must act according to natural and divine law—not by disregarding justice or sacred character.
For indigenous land understood as sacred, Laudato si’ implies that major projects affecting such land must treat indigenous communities as key dialogue partners and must recognize land as gift/sacred space, not mere commodity.
That directly constrains how a state justifies “taking” for public projects: the doctrine demands respect for identity, values, and cultural heritage—especially where abandonment is pressured to make room for development.
John Paul II also speaks of Jerusalem as unique in a way that matters for international protections. He calls it “a sacred heritage for all those who believe in God” and hopes for “international guarantees” to ensure access to believers.
While this does not provide a “mechanism” for eminent domain, it does show Catholic magisterial attention to preserving access and safeguarding sacred character for a globally significant sacred site.
Catholic doctrine supports the legitimacy of public expropriation only in limited, justified cases where the common good truly requires it, and it frames property rights with a strong sense of justice, distinguishing ownership from use.
For “sacred land,” Catholic law and theology emphasize:
No single text provided here gives a complete “legal manual” for eminent domain procedures (e.g., compensation, specific court standards, or exact steps), but the underlying doctrinal principles for evaluating such actions—necessity for the common good, justice, and reverence/protection for sacred character—are clearly present in the sources cited above.