The article from VaticanNews (February 20, 2026) reports on a three-day symposium titled “Media, Religion and Culture” held in Indonesia, organized by the Institut Filsafat dan Teknologi Kreatif Ledalero (IFTK Ledalero) in collaboration with the Asian Research Center for Religion and Social Communication of St. John’s University, Thailand. Scholars and practitioners from Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Australia—including Fr. Mark Robin Destura, RCJ, Prof. Dr. Otto Gusti Ndegong Madung, SVD, Benjamina P. Flor, and Fr. Anthony Le Duc—discussed the impact of digital media on religious practice and cultural life in Southeast Asia. Central themes included the ethical dimensions of “digital religion,” the concept of “embodying the sacred in the digital age,” and the role of media in shaping religious representation within pluralistic societies. The symposium aimed to equip leaders for digital engagement, framing the online environment as a “cultural and spiritual frontier.” This event, conducted under the auspices of the post-conciliar “Church” structures, represents a profound abandonment of Catholic theology for a naturalistic, immanentist, and relativistic paradigm that reduces the supernatural to a digitally-mediated cultural construct.
The Naturalistic Reduction of the Sacred to the Digital
The symposium’s foundational error is its treatment of religion as a cultural phenomenon to be managed through media theory, rather than a supernatural reality governed by divine law. Prof. Madung’s assertion that “digital technology is not neutral” and is a “political and ethical arena where religious identity, moral norms, and citizenship are constantly negotiated” reveals a complete surrender to the modernist principle that truth and morality are human constructs shaped by power dynamics. This directly contradicts the Catholic doctrine that moral norms are derived from the eternal law of God, not from societal negotiation. Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors condemned the notion that “moral laws do not stand in need of the divine sanction” (Error 56) and that “the science of philosophical things and morals… may and ought to keep aloof from divine and ecclesiastical authority” (Error 57). The symposium’s focus on “negotiating” religious identity in digital spaces is a direct manifestation of the indifferentism and latitudinarianism anathematized in the Syllabus (Errors 15-18).
The Blasphemous Concept of “Embodying the Sacred” Digitally
Benjamina Flor’s keynote, “Embodying the Sacred in the Digital Age: A Communication Approach,” is a profound theological aberration. She claims that “online worship should not be viewed merely as a substitute for physical gatherings but as a reconfiguration of sacred experience” and that “through communicative practices mediated by technology, the sacred continues to be embodied and sustained.” This is a denial of the sacramental nature of the Catholic Church. The “sacred” in Catholicism is not an experience to be “embodied” through technology but a reality made present through the ex opere operato efficacy of the sacraments, which require proper matter, form, and ministerial intention. The idea that a digital interface can “embody” the sacred reduces grace to a psychological or communal phenomenon, aligning with Modernism’s denial of the supernatural. St. Pius X’s Lamentabili sane exitu condemned the proposition that “the sacraments merely serve to remind man of the presence of the ever-benevolent Creator” (Proposition 41). Flor’s speech, therefore, propagates a condemned error under the guise of “communication.”
The Heresy of Religious Pluralism in Digital Narratives
Fr. Le Duc’s statement that “media does not merely transmit religious messages but actively shapes how religion is represented, interpreted, and judged in the public imagination” and that digital narratives can be “instruments of solidarity or sources of division” in pluralistic societies explicitly promotes the modernist and indifferentist view that all religions are equally valid cultural expressions. This is the precise error of the Syllabus, which condemned the idea that “Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion” (Error 18) and that “every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which… he shall consider true” (Error 15). By framing religion as a “representation” subject to “interpretation” in the “public imagination,” the symposium denies the objective, exclusive truth of the Catholic Faith and the duty of the social reign of Christ the King. Pius XI’s Quas Primas unequivocally teaches that Christ’s reign encompasses all nations and that “the entire human society had to be shaken, because it lacked a stable and strong foundation” when God is removed from public life. The symposium’s celebration of pluralism is a direct assault on this doctrine.
The Omission of Sacramental Reality and Supernatural Grace
The most damning aspect of the article is its complete silence on the supernatural foundations of Catholic religious life: the sacraments, the state of grace, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the final judgment. The entire discussion revolves around “digital worship,” “sacred experience,” and “religious communication” as if religion were a human activity devoid of grace. This is the hallmark of the conciliar sect’s naturalism. Lamentabili condemned the notion that “faith, as assent of the mind, is ultimately based on a sum of probabilities” (Proposition 25) and that “dogmas of faith should be understood according to their practical function, i.e., as binding in action, rather than as principles of belief” (Proposition 26). By reducing religion to “practices” and “narratives,” the symposium promotes a “dogmaless Christianity” (Proposition 65 of Lamentabili), where the content of faith is irrelevant compared to the “experience” and “dialogue.”
The Conciliar Roots of the Error: From Vatican II to Digital Religion
This symposium is a direct fruit of the conciliar revolution. The language of “dialogue,” “pluralism,” “inculturation,” and “communication” mirrors the modernist themes of Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes and Nostra Aetate, which were condemned in advance by Pius IX’s Syllabus (Errors 39-55 on Church-State relations and religious freedom) and St. Pius X’s Pascendi Dominici Gregis against Modernism. The very premise—that the Church must “engage” with digital media as a “frontier”—assumes the Church is a human institution adapting to cultural trends, rather than the immutable Mystical Body of Christ. Quas Primas states that Christ’s kingdom “encompasses all men” and that states must “publicly honor Christ and obey Him.” The conciliar sect, however, has inverted this: it now seeks to “honor” Christ by merging His religion with pagan cultures and digital platforms, thereby destroying the unique, exclusive, and sovereign rights of Christ the King.
The False Prophets of “Critical Reflection”
The call for “critical reflection” on digital engagement to safeguard “religious freedom, pluralism, and human rights” is a Trojan horse for apostasy. “Religious freedom” as understood today (the right to practice any religion or none) is condemned by Pius IX (Error 15) and Quas Primas, which insists that the state has a duty to publicly recognize Christ. “Human rights,” divorced from the rights of God, are the very foundation of the secular state that Quas Primas blames for society’s decay. The symposium’s leaders—Fr. Destura, Prof. Madung, Fr. Le Duc—are not Catholic theologians but agents of the conciliar sect, promoting a religion of man that replaces the sacrifice of Calvary with “digital worship” and the social kingship of Christ with “interreligious solidarity.”
Conclusion: A Call to Reject the Conciliar Sect’s Virtual Apostasy
This symposium is not a Catholic event but a manifestation of the “abomination of desolation” standing in the holy place. It replaces the immutable doctrines of the Faith with the shifting sands of digital culture, the sacramental life with “embodied sacred experiences,” and the exclusive reign of Christ with pluralistic dialogue. The only legitimate response for a Catholic is total rejection. As Pius XI declared in Quas Primas, “if men were ever to recognize Christ’s royal authority over themselves, both privately and publicly, then unheard-of blessings would flow upon the whole society.” The conciliar sect does the opposite: it removes Christ from public life and places Him on a digital altar of human invention. Catholics must flee these “structures occupying the Vatican” and adhere solely to the unchanging Faith, outside of which there is no salvation, no worship, and no true religion.
Source:
Indonesia hosts symposium on media's effect on religious practice (vaticannews.va)
Date: 20.02.2026