Is this a religious-liberty issue?

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Jun 22, 2026

In a legal battle between the Trump administration and the Las Cruces diocese, the religious-liberty arguments of the diocese would be much more persuasive if they were not couched in blatantly political rhetoric.

The Trump administration wants to seize land by eminent domain to complete a section of the border wall in the New Mexico desert. The conflict arises because the land is part of the Mount Cristo Rey pilgrimage site, where a giant statue of Christ the King stands atop a mountain near that border. The diocese argues that the border wall would be an “affront to religious liberty.”

If the diocese could demonstrate that the wall would inhibit the practice of the Catholic faith, the religious-freedom argument would deserve serious consideration. But instead the diocese contends that the wall itself is “offensive to Catholic values and teachings,” insofar as it is “a physical symbol of the government’s dehumanizing treatment of migrants writ large.” So it seems that core of the dispute is the Church’s opposition to the Trump administration’s border policies.

If the government built a wall to bar legal entrance to a pilgrimage site, that action would clearly offend against the exercise of religious freedom. But the purpose of the wall would be precisely to stop illegal entry into the United States. For the purposes of border security, the presence of a pilgrimage site nearby is irrelevant.

For the diocese, however, the existence of a wall would be offensive whether or not it interfered with the religious practice, because the wall itself would contrast with the statue of Christ the King. “This is not a battle between the Church and the government,” Deacon Jim Winder, the diocesan chancellor, told the New York Times; “it’s a battle between symbols.” He adds: “Our symbol was there first.”

The 29-foot statue of Christ the King, dominating the horizon from its spot on the peak of Mount Cristo Rey, is certainly a powerful symbol of the faith. The border wall might be a similar height, but it would be a drab, functional structure, situated on bare barren ground, several hundred feet below the peak. The wall itself would be a continuation of an existing wall, already in place, stretching along the border. So the segment to be constructed at this particular site would not have any special symbolic impact—except to those who chose to see it as a symbol of Trump policies. The Cristo Rey statue, on the other hand, would continue to command the scene, with its unmistakable message that Jesus is the Lord of History.

But the Las Cruces diocese, in its legal plea, contends that the wall is a powerful symbol, quoting Bishop Peter Baldacchino as saying that the wall is “a physical symbol of division and dehumanization” and “a counter-sign of the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

Granted, the wall would be unsightly. But it would be located in an already desolate and unpopulated area, and overshadowed by the nearby peak. Its purpose would be obvious: to guard against unauthorized intruders, including drug traffickers and other criminals who have plagued the local populace.

The diocesan complaint suggests that the wall proclaims a policy of hostility toward outsiders, including those who seek refuge in the US. But the existence of the wall does not prevent people from entering the country; it only prevents illegal entry. The Catholic Church has never questioned the right of a nation to police its own borders.

As a matter of fact, Vatican City has its own high, imposing walls, which were built centuries ago to guard against invasion. True, thousands of visitors enter Vatican territory every day. But those who file into St. Peter’s basilica are vetted by security guards and confined to designated areas. The Swiss Guard stop both vehicles and pedestrians at the Porta Santa Anna and check for identification, or ask visitors to state their business. They do not admit curious tourists who simply want to wander around the grounds—much less potential permanent residents who expect to receive free medical care and education for their children.

The existence of a wall does not conflict with Catholic social teaching. The problem in this case arises from the refusal of Church leaders to acknowledge that illegal immigration has become a serious problem for the US. If Catholic bishops would only concede that right of the federal government to control the borders, then and only then we could begin a serious discussion of how our country might uphold our tradition of welcoming the needy and the oppressed, without compromising our own national security.