Mount Cristo Rey bill seeks to block federal land seizure
Rep. Veronica Escobar introduced H.R. 9739 to prevent federal seizure of Mount Cristo Rey, a Catholic pilgrimage site in Sunland Park, New Mexico. The bill would recognize the mountain as a holy site and prohibit federal funds for eminent domain or border‑security infrastructure around it. Support comes from border bishops Peter Baldacchino and Mark Seitz, who argue the move infringes on religious liberty and harms pilgrims. The legislation follows the Trump administration’s earlier attempt to seize 14 acres of diocesan land for a border fence.
2 months ago
Mount Cristo Rey, a limestone statue of Jesus Christ atop a New Mexico mountain that serves as a pilgrimage site, is at the center of a new congressional effort to stop the federal government from seizing diocesan land for a border fence. Representative Veronica Escobar (D‑TX) introduced H.R. 9739, which would designate the mountain as a holy site, bar the use of federal funds for eminent‑domain actions against the Diocese of Las Cruces, and prohibit construction of security structures near the sanctuary. The bill has garnered backing from border bishops, who argue that the seizure infringes on religious liberty and the cultural heritage of the region. The federal government, under the Trump administration, has moved to acquire roughly 14 acres around the mountain for fence construction, prompting legal challenges from the diocese. If passed, the legislation would limit federal authority over the site while the dispute continues in the courts. 1 2
Does U.S. eminent domain infringe Catholic religious liberty?
Eminent domain does not automatically infringe Catholic religious liberty. In Catholic teaching, civil authorities may sometimes limit property rights (even by compulsory taking) for the common good, provided actions are within just limits—especially with fair compensation.
However, eminent domain can become a violation of religious liberty if it is used (or structured) in a way that coerces religious persons or communities, or hinders them from governing themselves, worshipping, teaching, or using necessary property and facilities—especially when the effect is to make religious profession “very difficult” or to deter it.
The Second Vatican Council teaches that religious freedom means that people must be immune from coercion so that no one is forced “to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly.”
It also clarifies that this freedom is not only individual but extends to religious communities, which “rightfully claim freedom” to “govern themselves according to their own norms,” to “honor the Supreme Being in public worship,” to “strengthen them by instruction,” and to do so in institutions they can join.
Crucially for a property-taking question, the Council explicitly lists community rights related to property and governance: communities have the right “not to be hindered… in erecting buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of suitable funds or properties.”
Finally, government has a direct duty to protect this liberty effectively by “just laws” and “other appropriate means,” and it wrongs citizens if it uses force or other measures to hinder people’s religious freedom.
Catholic social teaching recognizes private property as real and valuable, but not absolute. In Gaudium et Spes, private ownership is described as contributing to the person’s autonomy and as a condition for civil liberties, yet it also affirms that “goods can be transferred to the public domain only by the competent authority, according to the demands and within the limits of the common good, and with fair compensation.”
The Council adds a further limit: public authority can prevent abuse of property to the detriment of the common good.
Similarly, Church teaching on land policy (e.g., agrarian reform) states that expropriation may be justified when needed, but “with adequate compensation to the owners.”
And the tradition summarized in Quadragesimo anno (as collected in the Enchiridion) stresses that the state “may not perform its duty arbitrarily,” because private property rights must “remain intact and unviolated,” even though the state can control the use of property in harmony with the common good.
The Church does not treat eminent domain as inherently religious-liberty violating. Instead, the Catholic question is whether the particular exercise of eminent domain infringes the religious liberty guarantees described above—namely, coercion and hindrance of religious life.
An eminent domain action is more likely not to infringe religious liberty when it is:
In such cases, the taking may still be difficult or costly for a parish or religious entity, but Catholic doctrine does not treat legitimate regulation of property for the common good as per se persecution or a violation of religious freedom.
An eminent domain action becomes a concern (and potentially a violation) when it hinders religious communities in the specific ways Vatican II protects, for example when the taking or its conditions:
Importantly, Catholic teaching treats this as more than “freedom of worship” alone. It includes freedom for religious communities to govern themselves according to their norms and to conduct religious life in society.
Whether U.S. eminent domain “infringes” Catholic religious liberty is therefore fact-dependent:
Eminent domain is not intrinsically anti-religious in Catholic teaching; it becomes religious-liberty infringement if, in its purpose, structure, or effects, it coerces Catholics or hinders religious communities from living and acting according to their faith—especially by interfering with religious worship, instruction, and religious buildings/property.