---

The Profanation of Sacred Images and the Silence of the Conciliar Sect

The cited article from EWTN News reports on an incident at the Belgian radio station Studio Brussel, where hosts Sam De Bruyn, Eva De Roo, and Dries Lenaerts filmed themselves smashing statues of Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary. The segment, aired in January 2026, was framed as a humorous response to “Blue Monday.” During a subsequent interview at the Radiodays Europe conference, the hosts defended their actions by citing Belgian secularism, their own Catholic upbringing as a supposed “license,” and the comparative danger of mocking Islam. The network issued a formal apology on March 24, stating the video “was intended as a humorous piece, and they underestimated how sensitive religious symbols can be.”

This incident is not merely a cultural misstep but a profound act of blasphemy and sacrilege, symptomatic of the radical secularization fostered by the post-conciliar “Church.” The apology’s language—focusing on “misjudging” sensitivity and “treating everyone’s beliefs with care”—reveals a naturalistic, relativistic mindset utterly alien to the Catholic faith. It treats sacred images as mere “religious symbols” subject to human sentiment, not as representations of the Incarnate God and His Mother, whose very dignity demands reverence. The hosts’ claim that their Catholic upbringing grants them “a little more credit” to commit such acts is a diabolical inversion, implying familiarity breeds contempt for the holy. Their explicit cowardice in refusing to treat Islamic images similarly exposes the hypocrisy of a secularism that attacks Christ while fearing Islam. The true scandal is not the hosts’ behavior, but the silence and complicity of the modern ecclesiastical hierarchy, which has abandoned its duty to publicly condemn such outrages and invoke divine justice.

Factual Deconstruction: Lies, Cowardice, and the Trivialization of Sin

The article presents the hosts’ justifications as plausible within a secular Belgian context. De Bruyn states, “in Belgium, it is not a big issue,” and that the smashed items were “all things that were already broken.” This is a deliberate falsehood. The statues were not “already broken” in a metaphysical sense; they were sacred objects set aside for destruction. The act was a premeditated, violent profanation. Their distinction between Christianity and Islam—calling the latter “dangerous” while mocking Christ—is not cultural prudence but cowardly bigotry. It demonstrates that the secular elite’s contempt is reserved for the crucified God, while they tremble before a false prophet. The apology’s phrasing, “they underestimated how sensitive religious symbols can be,” is a lie of omission. The issue is not sensitivity; it is the objective gravity of sacrilege, which offends God regardless of human perception. By framing it as a matter of cultural awareness, the network absolves itself of moral culpability and reduces sin to a social faux pas.

Linguistic Analysis: The Language of Naturalism and Apostasy

The article’s language is steeped in the jargon of post-conciliar relativism. Key phrases reveal the theological decay:

• “Humorous piece”: This trivializes mortal sin. What is “humorous” about the violent destruction of images of the Word Made Flesh and His Immaculate Mother? The laughter is diabolical, echoing the mockery of Christ’s Passion.
• “Religious symbols”: This neutral, academic term strips sacred images of their supernatural reality. They are not “symbols” in the abstract; they are representations of real persons—Christ and Mary—who reign in heaven. To smash them is to symbolically assault the heavenly reality.
• “Sensitive”: This psychological term reduces offense to subjective feeling. The article never mentions God’s honor, indignity, or sin. The silence is deafening.
• “Misjudged”: A managerial, corporate euphemism for mortal sin. It implies a miscalculation of public relations, not a violation of the First and Second Commandments.
• “Treating everyone’s beliefs with care”: This is the language of indifferentism, condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors (Props. 15-16). It places the worship of the One True God on par with false religions, implying all “beliefs” deserve equal respect. This is the essence of the post-conciliar “dialogue” that equates Catholicism with paganism.

The tone is casual, reportorial, and devoid of any supernatural perspective. There is no mention of contrition, satisfaction, or the need for formal reparation. The apology is a PR statement, not an act of satisfaction for sacrilege. This linguistic framework is the fruit of the “new theology” condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici gregis and Lamentabili sane exitu, which reduces dogma to “symbols” and faith to “experience.”

Theological Confrontation: The Unchanging Faith vs. Modernist Relativism

From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, the act and the response are utterly condemnable. The Second Commandment (Ex. 20:4-5) forbids not only idolatry but also the irreverent treatment of sacred images. The Council of Trent (Session XXV) explicitly commands:

The images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints, are to be had and retained particularly in temples, and due honor and veneration are to be given them; not that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in them, on account of which they are to be worshipped; or that anything is to be asked of them; or, that confidence is to be reposed in images, as was of old done by Gentiles who put their trust in idols; but because the honor which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which they represent; so that by the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ and venerate the saints, whose likeness they bear.

The violent destruction of these images is a direct violation of this decree. It is an act of contumely against Christ the King, whose royal dignity Pius XI proclaimed in Quas Primas:

It has long been customary to call Christ King in a figurative sense, because of the supreme degree of His dignity… But, if we delve deeper into the matter itself, we shall realize that the name and authority of king in the proper sense belong to Christ the Man… Christ the Lord is King of hearts because of His love, which surpasses knowledge.

To smash His statue is to spit upon His kingship. The article’s omission of this theological reality is the gravest accusation. It operates on a purely natural, sociological plane, as if the Incarnation and the Communion of Saints were irrelevant. This is the hallmark of the “abomination of desolation”—the replacement of supernatural worship with humanistic sentiment.

The hosts’ claim that their Catholic upbringing grants them license is a heresy. It inverts the purpose of the sacraments and catechesis, which should produce reverence, not contempt. Their actions fulfill the prophecy of St. Pius X in Pascendi regarding the Modernist: “He will be found to be a thorough and complete Naturalist, who in the name of a higher and more ample development of the Christian life, rejects the external worship of God.”

Symptomatic Analysis: The Fruit of the Conciliar Revolution

This incident is not an anomaly but a logical consequence of the conciliar apostasy. The “new Pentecost” of Vatican II produced a “Church” that has systematically dismantled the reign of Christ:

1. Hermeneutics of Continuity: The false notion that Vatican II is a “development” of doctrine, not a rupture. This allows for the reinterpretation of the Second Commandment to mean “respect for symbols” rather than “reverence for sacred things.”
2. Religious Liberty: The Dignitatis humanae error (condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus, Props. 15, 77-79) enshrines the “right” to false worship and reduces religion to a human right. This naturally leads to the equalization of all “beliefs” and the trivialization of Catholic truth.
3. Ecumenism: The push for “dialogue” with non-Christian religions creates a climate where Catholic truth is seen as one option among many. Hence, the hosts’ fear of mocking Islam—they recognize its power in the new order, while Christ is the designated “whipping boy” of secularism.
4. Desacralization of the Liturgy: The destruction of the traditional Roman Rite and the introduction of the “Mass of Paul VI” have desensitized the faithful to the sacred. If the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary can be reduced to a “meal” and a “celebration of community,” then statues become mere “art.”
5. Silence of the Shepherds: Where are the “bishops” of Belgium? Where is “Pope” Leo XIV? Their silence is culpable. It teaches by omission that such acts are a matter of “sensitivity,” not mortal sin. This is the “silence of the shepherds” foretold by St. Pius X in Pascendi: “The partisans of error are to be found in the very bosom of the Church… They are, so to speak, a hidden poison.”

The apology’s focus on “respect for every religion” is a direct echo of Dignitatis humanae and the post-conciliar “dialogue” fever. It is a betrayal of the exclusive rights of Christ the King, as defined by Pius XI:

Let rulers of states therefore not refuse public veneration and obedience to the reigning Christ, but let them fulfill this duty themselves and with their people… the state must leave the same freedom to the members of Orders and Congregations…

A state that permits the public desecration of Christ’s images is a state that has formally rejected His reign. The conciliar sect’s failure to demand reparation and excommunicate the perpetrators is a public confession of its apostasy.

The Omitted Supernatural Reality: No Judgment, No Justice, No Reparation

The article’s gravest omission is its complete silence on the supernatural consequences of such acts. There is:

• No mention of mortal sin and the loss of sanctifying grace for the perpetrators.
• No invocation of divine justice or the temporal punishment due to such blasphemy (cf. the punishments for the Golden Calf in Ex. 32, or the destruction of the idols by Josiah in 2 Kings 23).
• No call for public acts of reparation—processions, penance, the solemn blessing of new statues to replace the destroyed ones.
• No reference to the First Saturday Devotions (which, even if the Fatima apparitions are suspect, contain a legitimate Catholic practice of reparation) or the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus as a counter-blasphemy.
• No reminder that the state has a duty, per Quas Primas, to protect the public honor of Christ the King. A truly Catholic state would have prosecuted this as a crime against public order and the common good.

This silence is not accidental; it is doctrinal. The conciliar sect, having embraced the “world,” can no longer speak of sin, hell, or divine vengeance. Its morality is reduced to “care” and “sensitivity,” which are humanistic, not supernatural, virtues. The article mirrors this emptiness. It reports a sacrilege as if it were a cultural controversy, like a dispute over public art funding. This is the “naturalism” condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus (Props. 1-7) and by St. Pius X as the core of Modernism.

Contrast with Pre-1958 Catholic Teaching: A Chasm of Apostasy

Contrast this incident and its coverage with the unchangeable mind of the Church before the revolution:

• Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors (1864): Condemns the error that “the civil authority… has a right to an indirect negative power over religious affairs” (Prop. 41) and that “the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church” (Prop. 55). A Catholic state would have suppressed Studio Brussel for this blasphemy. The modern secular state, tolerated by the conciliar sect, permits it.
• Pius XI, Quas Primas (1925): Declares that “the entire human society had to be shaken, because it lacked a stable and strong foundation” when “God and Jesus Christ were removed from laws and states.” The article’s Belgium, a “majority-secular country,” is the exact fulfillment of this prophecy. The “blessing” of such a state by the conciliar sect is a betrayal of Christ’s kingship.
• Trent, Session XXV (1563): Mandates that sacred images be kept in temples and honored. The destruction of such images would have been punished by the ecclesiastical and civil authorities as a crimen laesae maiestatis divinae (crime against divine majesty).
• St. Pius X, Lamentabili sane exitu (1907): Condemns the proposition that “the principal articles of the Apostles’ Creed did not have the same meaning for the first Christians as they do for contemporary Christians” (Prop. 62). The modern mindset that sees statues as “symbols” and not as representations of real persons is a direct fruit of this condemned “evolution of dogma.”

The conciliar sect’s response—a tepid apology about “sensitivity”—is a betrayal of the entire Catholic tradition. It treats the First and Second Commandments as cultural artifacts, not as eternal laws binding on all nations.

Conclusion: The Apostasy is Complete

The Studio Brussel incident is a microcosm of the post-conciliar apostasy. It displays:

1. Theological ignorance: No understanding of the Incarnation’s implications for sacred art.
2. Moral relativism: Blasphemy reduced to “bad taste” or “insensitivity.”
3. Cowardice before Islam: Fear of Muslims, contempt for Christ.
4. Naturalistic apologetics: The apology speaks only of “beliefs” and “care,” not of God’s honor or eternal salvation.
5. The silence of the “hierarchy”: No excommunication, no public act of reparation, no call for the state to defend Christ’s honor.

This is the “Church of the New Advent,” a paramasonic structure that has exchanged the Unbloody Sacrifice for “humorous pieces,” the Veneration of Saints for their mockery, and the Kingship of Christ for the “freedom” of the secularist. The true Catholic, clinging to the unchanging faith of Pius IX, Pius X, and Pius XI, must respond with:

• Public condemnation of the act as mortal sin and sacrilege.
• Prayers of reparation—the Rosary, the Litany of the Saints, the Mass of the Holy Ghost.
• Rejection of the conciliar sect’s legitimacy. Its apology is worthless because it does not anathematize the error; it merely regrets a PR misstep.
• Affirmation of Christ’s Social Kingship. Only a state that publicly honors Christ and suppresses blasphemy can claim to be part of the City of God.

The incident proves that the “abomination of desolation” (Matt. 24:15) is not a future event but a present reality: the desecration of the holy place (the Church) by the conciliar revolutionaries and their secular allies. The only response is the cry of the Church Militant: “Christus Vincit, Christus Regnat, Christus Imperat!”

---

Source:
Belgian radio station apologizes after smashing statues of Jesus, Blessed Mother   (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 25.03.2026