Colombia: The Crucifix Reduced to a “Cultural Value”

June 17, 2022
The Constitutional Court of Colombia meeting under the crucifix

The Constitutional Court of Colombia has decided that the presence of a crucifix in the plenary hall of the Court does not violate the neutrality of the State and does not impose conditions on the magistrates, so it will remain in place. This sentence was not necessary to establish that the previous decisions of the Court are largely in favor of the culture of death.

The Court’s judgment specified that “removing the crucifix would be anti-religious hostility and not secularism,” after issuing a decision on June 1 that the presence of a cross in the plenary room of the same court does not violate the neutrality of the State or impose conditions the magistrates; therefore, it will remain in place.

A citizen had filed a complaint claiming that the presence of the crucifix in the Alfonso Reyes Echandía courthouse allegedly implied that the state was assuming a “bias” and that its presence could constrain judges in their decisions.

The Court made the assurance that the judges “were not affected in their judgment and objectivity” and that the presence of the crucifix “does not constitute any form of exclusion or indoctrination.”

The justices thus explained that the crucifix has historical value, given that it has been in the plenary hall since its inauguration on June 7, 1999, and has cultural value having been carved by an artisan “of recognized talent” from Candelaria.

They also recalled that, according to UNESCO, cultural identity is defined as “the distinctive spiritual, material, and emotional characteristics, arts, letters, way of life, beliefs, and traditions.”

The decision of the Colombian Constitutional Court, which affirms that “removing the crucifix would be an anti-religious hostility,” underlines that the 1991 Constitution obliges the neutrality of the State towards religion.

“It does not veto relations with Churches, but with some it does and with others it does not,” they explained, specifying that the fact that the Catholic religion is more widespread “does not imply privileged treatment.”

The Court asked the plaintiffs to be “tolerant and respectful of cultural traditions.” In addition, the judgment refers to the comparative jurisprudence of the high courts of the Latin-American region.

Authoritarian and anti-Christian judges

The reality is that the magistrates of the highest court in Colombia have demonstrated in fact that they despise everything that the crucifix represents and symbolizes. They are the same people who abused their authority to de facto ignore the role of the legislative power and  arrogate the sovereignty of the people by legalizing euthanasia and abortion up to 24 weeks gestation.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre showed the destructive nature of conciliar religious freedom with the example of Colombia. He explained “that he was in Colombia when the President of the Republic announced to the population that, at the request of the Holy See, they had removed the first article of the constitution, which stipulated: “The Catholic religion is the only religion recognized by the Colombian Republic.”

He expressed his regret, understanding that many Catholics would be surprised to think that the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ over their country had been abolished. He added that being a Catholic himself he would strive to always have immense respect for the Catholic religion and that he would always do his best for the Church, but that henceforth it would no longer be the only officially recognized religion by Colombia.

“The nuncio made a speech on progress, development, human dignity, which could have been given by a Freemason. And the president of the episcopal conference made a third speech, simply referring to the conciliar document on religious freedom, to justify that the Catholic religion is no longer the only one recognized in the Colombian Republic.”

“The President of the Republic specified that 98% of Colombians were Catholics and only 2% non-Catholics. Then I learned from the secretary of the Assembly of Bishops that they had for two years besieged the Presidency of the Republic in the name of the Secretariat of State in Rome to get to that point.” (Conference in Barcelona, ​​December 29, 1975)

When we have driven Jesus Christ out of public life, let us not be surprised at the result.