Decoding the USCCB's Failure to Consecrate America to the Sacred Heart

I recently produced a video in which I pointed out that, despite claiming to consecrate the United States to the Sacred Heart, the bishops did no such thing. You can check out that video here.

Since I published this video, a few additional thoughts came to mind. Mainly, I sought to answer the question: why did the bishops not actually consecrate America to the Sacred Heart? Instead, they offered a blessing: “O Desire of Nations and Center of History, we ask you to bless these United States of America.” I think I figured it out.

Last November, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) promised American Catholics that they were going to consecrate the United States to the Sacred Heart of Jesus in anticipation of the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. They approved this effort on November 11, 2025 at the General Assembly. 215 bishops voted in favor of the consecration, while 8 bishops voted against it.

A consecration proponent and chairman of the Committee for Religious Liberty, Archbishop Alexander Sample, produced a short video explaining why the USCCB voted to make this consecration. He correctly pointed out that Pope Pius XI taught that consecrating nations to the Sacred Heart was a way to recognize the Kingship of Christ.

Indeed, in the same 1925 encyclical, Quas Primas, in which the Feast of Christ the King was instituted, Pius XI explained that

“The kingship and empire of Christ have been recognized in the pious custom, practiced by many families, of dedicating themselves to the Sacred Heart of Jesus; not only families have performed this act of dedication, but nations, too, and kingdoms.”

Thus, there has been a longstanding intimate connection between the Sacred Heart devotion and the Kingship of Christ. More particularly, there is a strong connection between the Sacred Heart devotion and His social kingship over temporal matters and political entities.

Interestingly, I also noticed the EWTN article that reported on the upcoming consecration quoted Bishop Kevin Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana. He made the effort to remind everyone of “our task to serve our nation by perfecting the temporal order with the spirit of the Gospel as taught by the Second Vatican Council.”

What is this “spirit of the Gospel as taught by the Second Vatican Council?” Why was it necessary to mention Vatican II, when a simple “we need to perfect the temporal order with the Gospel” would have sounded perfectly fine and Catholic? Why did he not mention Christ’s Kingship?

I really did not pay much attention to it until after the so-called consecration took place on June 11, 2026 in Orlando, Florida. It came to my attention that while the bishops claimed they completed the consecration, they never actually did consecrate the United States to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

The USCCB published the prayer that they called the “consecration” publicly for all to see here.

Nothing in this prayer constituted an actual consecration. Before I made my video about this, I confirmed with several priests to make sure a consecration should actually contain the word “consecrate.” And if it’s a consecration to the Sacred Heart, then it should also mention the Sacred Heart.

Instead, the closest thing to such a consecration I could decipher was “O Desire of Nations and Center of History, we ask you to bless these United States of America.”

So, we end up with a blessing without any “consecration” language or reference to the Sacred Heart. This raises the question: who were those eight bishops who voted against this in the first place? Did they have any influence on the language used in the prayer?

After reflecting on this further, even more noticeable was the absence of any reference to the Kingship of Christ or Christ the King. Did not Archbishop Sample in a promotional video quote Pope Pius XI wherein the connection between the doctrine of Christ the King and the Sacred Heart devotion were made? This seemed to be a central component of this effort to consecrate America to the Sacred Heart, according to Sample.

It would seem not just appropriate but almost obligatory to mention Christ’s kingly authority over all temporal nations when consecrating a nation like the United States to the Sacred Heart. Instead of a prayer referencing Christ as the King of Nations or King of History, we get “Desire of Nations” and “Center of History.”

And then I recalled Francis’ 2024 encyclical on the Sacred Heart, Delexit Nos. How many references to the Kingship of Christ were made in that encyclical? NONE. Not one.

Now you should see what is going on here, but in case you needed confirmation, we can turn, as usual, to the National Catholic Reporter, which typically spills the beans on what drives the Modernist heretics in the Church’s hierarchy. Peter Smith reported on the upcoming consecration,

“Separately, a Catholic group launched a billboard campaign this month promoting June as the official month of the Sacred Heart. A Republican candidate for Florida governor, James Fishback, officially consecrated his campaign to the Sacred Heart.

There is precedent for a devotional expression to take on controversial political overtones, even if it’s neutral and spiritual on its own.

The phrase “Christ is king” has increasingly been proclaimed in U.S. political settings, at times used in connection with Christian nationalist proclamations or even anti-Zionist or antisemitic claims.”

Now, I hope you understand what is going on here. In accordance with Vatican II, the Catholic bishops appear to have been concerned that consecrating America to the Sacred Heart of Jesus would have been viewed as antisemitic.

I say, in accordance with Vatican II, because Vatican II seemingly uncrowned Our Lord as King of the temporal world, and certainly moved the Church away from the Feast of Christ the King as instituted by Pius XI. I previously explained why Modernists effectively replaced the Feast of Christ the King with a new Modernist version.

Modernists reject the social Kingship of Christ due to its traditional doctrinal implications regarding the Church’s role in influencing civil government and its influence on civil laws, particularly concerning sexual morality. Additionally, if Christ is recognized as King of all nations, it raises questions about the status of a nation like Israel, whose national religion rejects the divinity of Christ.

My theory, therefore, is that between November 2025 and June of 2026, someone with influence at the USCCB, perhaps one of the bishops who voted against it, convinced enough other bishops that a straightforward consecration to the Sacred Heart is too politically polarizing. Because the vote had already taken place, they needed to back out of the consecration without upsetting the millions that were counting on it.

As such, the consecration to the Sacred Heart needed to be changed to a generalized blessing. Shockingly, it appears they hoped no one would notice.

Well, I noticed, and apparently others did too. I did not collaborate with anyone as I worked through this, but it appears Radical Fidelity noticed the same problems as I did! For his excellent analysis of this non-consecration, including the absence of the Kingship of Christ, check out Riaan Van Zyl’s take at Integrity Magazine.