Some Catholic apologists try to water down the dogmatic teachings of Catholicism vis-à-vis the veneration of images/icons/statues. For instance, Lizzie Reezay, a popular youtuber who recently converted to Catholicism, once said in a video that images are merely “Reminders of our Christian family members and it’s the idea that people don’t die; they are in heaven with God right now.”
Such a false presentation and understanding of Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) dogmatic theology and other issues have been addressed before, including the following articles:
The Synod of Elvira vs. Second Nicea on Veneration of Images
Robert Bellarmine Affirming the Veneration of Images, not the Heavenly Prototype Merely
God Commanding the Making of the Brass Serpent and Cherubim: Support for the Veneration of Images?
The Abbots of Constantinople and the Veneration of Images, not the Images' Heavenly Prototypes Merely
Joseph Pohle (1852-1922) who was a top-notch Catholic systematic theologian, addressed this issue in his dogmatic treatise on Mariology:
Some Catholic divines (notably Durandus and Alphonsus a Castro) hold that holy images are not in themselves worthy of veneration, but merely furnish an occasion to honor their originals. This opinion militates both against common sense and the defined teaching of the Church. A devoted son who kisses the image of his mother obviously honors the image itself, because of its relation to one who is near and dear to him. Similarly a Catholic uncovers his head and kneels before the statue of a Saint, and not before the Saint himself whom the statue represents, thus showing that he regards the image as something more than a mere ornament or means of instruction. The official teaching of the Church is perfectly plain on this point. The Seventh Ecumenical Council refers to the images of the Saints as “venerable and holy,” while that of Trent declares them to be entitled to honor and reverence. A still plainer expression is that of the Eighth Ecumenical Council (A.D. 869), which says, “It is becoming that, in harmony with reason and a very ancient tradition, holy images be derivatively honored and adored, in reference, namely, to the originals which they represent, just like the holy book of the Gospels and the figure of the precious cross.”
This view is in harmony with the universal practice of the faithful,--which was expressly defended by Pope Pius VI against the pseudo-council of Pistoja,--of showing particular veneration and attributing special titles of honor to miraculous images of the Saints, especially those of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and preserving certain holy images under cover so that they cannot be seen. The opinion of Durandus and Alphonsus a Castro is unanimously rejected by modern theologians . . . Bellarmine held,--and his opinion was shared, among others, by Catharinus and Platel,--that holy images may indeed be venerated for their own sake, but with a lesser cult than the originals, and that no image, not even that of Divinity itself, is entitled to a relative divine worship (cultus latriae relativus). (Joseph Pohle, Mariology: A Dogmatic Treatise on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, with an Appendix on the Worship of the Saints, Relics, and Images, 176-77, 179, emphasis in bold added)