In God’s Image: Male and Female

by sex-ed author, Patricia Miller

Alice Grayson’s Review of the Sex Education Program

The Franciscan Press has produced a classroom sex-education instructional series using video tapes as the medium and featuring its author, Patricia Miller, as its actress/teacher.

The following are excerpts from “Committee of Catholic Parents” of Buffalo, New York — critique of In God’s Image: Male and Female (In God’s Image):

In God’s Image: Male and Female

… But there is more, much more to In God’s Image.

Mrs. Miller says to her young viewers: “I am not trying to preach to you. I’m really worried about you.” Therefore, she feels the need to communicate with them concerning:

sexual climax
oral-genital intercourse
necking
petting
foreplay
rape
date or acquaintance rape
kissing the genital area
incest
child molestation

Admitting the “boys are easily sexually stimulated,” she evidences no reticence at flooding their youthful imaginations with sexual imagery. “You never thought of it that way, did you?,” she asks, with no thought that some children will find such discussion of material intimacies a traumatic invasion of the psyche — with a resulting destructive loss of innocence. Though Mrs. Miller rightly declares:

“The Church tells us to avoid situations where we can be sexually stimulated,” — she appears oblivious that her own video classes might be occasions of sin for some students. Poor judgment is constantly shown as regards the physiological and physical aspects of sexuality being communicated to children. This is not surprising in view of the kinds of recommended material found in the Facilitators’ Manual. The latter even recommends the objectionable book (long decried by Catholic parents), Freedom of Sexual Love by Joseph and Lois Bird, a book which explicitly describes oral-genital contact, techniques for prolonging ejaculation, and positions of intercourse in a manner that a well-known Catholic writer, Msgr. D.D. Conway, admitted “would have not received Catholic approval a few years ago.”

Simply put, In God’s Image is a program which is guilty of indecent exposure of children to naked sex.

But there is more to this unchaste pedagogy which hardly differs from that offered in public schools where secular and neo-pagan values dictate the emphasis on anatomical and physiological processes to the detriment of a child’s modesty. In God’s Image even engages in occasional crudities as children are told: “You lay, you pay. How true it is!” This again, hardly amounts to “discussing sexuality in a positive way.” Though there are common-sense cautions to early dating, the boys are actually encouraged to try to “be appealing” to the girls! One must wonder, too at the effect of all the disturbing information concerning such sexually transmitted diseases as:

syphilis
gonorrhea
chlamydia
herpes
AIDS

Young students who are repeatedly told:

“I’m not trying to scare you!”

“All medical information is provided in the context of:
How wonderful everything is in God’s creation.”

“How pleasurable sex is a gift of God.” “What fantastic bodies we have!”

Since no coherent explanation is given concerning the mixed messages received about the goodness of human nature and earthly realities (in light of the ravages wrought by sin), the children are bound to be only confused as result of the ignoring of the Church’s doctrine of Original Sin. Mrs. Miller who is adamant on telling her fellow facilitators to “avoid lecturing on how awful the world is” clearly avoids as much as possible any discussion of sexuality which would be “sin-centered.”

Mrs. Miller appears dimly aware that she has engaged in providing large doses of sexual information that may prove difficult for young children to assimilate. “Heavy stuff, huh!” With its classroom approach, In God’s Image is structured to ignore the important educational principle of individual readiness to receive such information without harm or trauma. There is, of course, no guarantee provided that psychological, emotional or spiritual trauma will not accrue to some of the children exposed to its irresponsible pedagogy. Interestingly, for all the desensitizing “scientific” information given children in this program, it is evident that giggling, nervous laughter, averted gazes, and other signs of mental and emotional discomfort remain to identify In God’s Image as a sex educational program treating children essentially as objects.

Example — In God’s Image: Male and Female — Values Clarification

… The constant refrain of “It’s your choice to be sexually active” and “You have a choice” does not do justice to the Church’s teaching that though one is physically free to violate God’s commandments, there is no moral freedom to do so. There is no moral choice to do evil. In the Facilitators’ Manual one reads:

Have a class debate whether it is okay for young people to wear sexy clothes, use foul language, read pornography to be popular. Is it right to put pressure on each other to do these things? Have them define “sexy” clothes, “foul” language, “pornography.”

Example — In God’s Image: Male and Female — Values Clarification

In the treatment of such issues as premarital sex, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, prostitution and pornography, In God’s Image reveals a disturbing moral laxity. There are too many indications of an unwarranted subjectivism regarding moral demands resulting in an excessive autonomy granted young people in “making their own choices.” This is not surprising in view of the Ten Commandments being treated as mere “guidelines” and a serious catechetical failure to stress the Divine authority of Christ and His Church as sustaining the Church’s moral teachings.

One must ask why our Blessed Lord is identified merely as “a special person?” Why is the spiritual and immortal soul possessed by every child, ignored? Why are the doctrines of Original Sin and sanctifying grace and Hell never referred to? The term “miracle” is clearly misused. The term mortal sin is avoided with consequent confusion as to how “everyone” (including those in mortal sin?) can be regarded as “temples of the Holy Spirit.” Throughout In God’s Image, spiritual dangers are definitely subordinated to concern for one’s own “physical and mental self.” The fear of offending God appears replaced by the fear of “immaturity” and the loss of “self-esteem.” The “fear of God” which is the “beginning of wisdom,” as Scripture relates, is subordinated to the fear of adverse psychological, physical, and social consequences. The moral tone and atmosphere of In God’s Image (as personified in its false compassion toward “homosexual persons”) would make short shrift of what it would doubtless regard as “the Pharisaical righteousness of the dogmatic Catholic” — to use the expression of a recent dissenter critical of magisterial teaching.

As noted in the foregoing, the video treatment of key moral issues leaves much to be desired. In In God’s Image, it is “excessive” masturbation that is sinful. The young students are told that the “Catholic Church teaches that premarital sex is morally wrong; therefore it can be a serious sin” (emphasis added). As already noted, its handling of homosexuality drips with a false compassion. There is a reluctance to use the term “lesbian,” though the homosexuals’ own favored term “gay” is freely used. The Church’s teaching that a homosexual orientation constitutes an objective moral disorder is ignored, and, though homosexual activity is declared “morally wrong,” the word “sinful” is avoided (however, in the Facilitators’ Manual it is admitted that homosexual activity is sinful). Curiously, contrary to explicit description of other sexual acts readily given in the video segments, what homosexuals do is never explained. (Thank God!) Students are soothed with the affirmation: “There is a place for everybody in this world.” But they are not instructed that homosexuals should stop their sinning if they are to live in the grace of God. Interestingly, the young students are not informed that AIDS is a disease that has been largely spread by active homosexuals.

The chief methods of contraceptive birth control are described ad nauseam and declared to be “disapproved of by Catholics” — a questionable statement, in view of the fact that everyone knows many Catholics do practice sinful birth control.

Human Life International’s (H.L.I.) analysis of In God’s Image: Male and Female observes:

By now parents have become familiar with the objections to various “sex-ed” programs — distortion of Church teachings on sexual morality, Original Sin and chastity; too graphic materials; invasion of the privacy of the family and the child; and the teaching of secular humanism and moral relativism in place of God’s unchanging Commandments. What is different about the new sex-ed courses is how much more graphic they are, and how skilled the producers have become in masking their half-truths and falsehoods with additional God language and psychological manipulation.

In God’s Image: Male and Female is one such program. It is the video equivalent of sex education text programs like New Creation or a Benziger program. The videos have great visual appeal. A very attractive teacher seems so understanding and caring, sometimes even to the point of a catch in her voice or a tear in her eye. She wears different, fashionable clothes in each video. The setting is an airy, California-type, white kitchen and sun room. Soft, “New Age” background music usually begins and ends each video.
(H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [The Fabulous Female], 1992, p. 1)

After studying the material from In God’s Image, I find myself “chilled” with the effectiveness of the conditioning process. I am truthfully frightened by the extreme explicitness of the sex and perverted sex advocacy, and also by the eerie implementation by Mrs. Miller of the hard-line Planned Parenthood dogmas. Equally frightening is Mrs. Miller’s pseudo theology – some of which doesn’t even relate to Planned Parenthood sex at all! She is heavily influenced by modernism, pop-psychology, and New Age authors – as her bibliography confirms.

It should be remembered that it is always the “good child” who comes from a home where authority (in the persons of the teacher and of the Church) is always respected, who is the student most damaged by Mrs. Miller’s program. The more innocent, the more naive the child, the more lethal In God’s Image becomes.

So, first let me show the progression of explicit sex. It is more graphic, more detailed. Because of overheads and videos, it is more commanding of the children’s attention providing less ability to tune out or escape. The child is not even allowed to express his uneasiness and embarrassment at this indecent exposure because Mrs. Miller calls giggling or squirming immature and unacceptable. (Some children, however, still do squirm; with others, the trauma is internalized — only to be manifested later by lack of sleep, crying, poor study habits, physical violence, sexual perversion, etc.) The admonition given to children by Mrs. Miller is:

I know this will make some of you a little uncomfortable and you’ll be tempted to giggle and make wisecracks during this time. That’s because the body is so personal that we often feel awkward discussing it…. You can overcome the uncomfortable feeling and control your behavior. In fact, the ability to do this is a sign of maturity on your part and you’re not little kids any more. So I ask that, for the sake of everyone in the class…forget the comics.
(H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [The Fabulous Female], 1992, p. 3)

Sample — Intensely Graphic Sex

the husband places his penis into his wife’s vagina. When the penis is handled, blood rushes into its veins and it becomes hard. When the wife’s vagina is touched, it become moist. This should enable the penis to enter the vagina without difficulty. When the penis is stimulated, it ejaculates semen and sperm into the vagina…. Both the husband and wife climax in different pleasurable ways. When the semen enters the vagina, the sperm…
(H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [The Marvelous Male], 1992, p. 12 )

… Necking is “long, heavy-duty kissing, including French kissing.” Petting is “touching or fondling of the breast or the genital areas of our body.”
(H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [Sexuality — A Powerful Drive], 1992, p. 21)

Our Church tells us that necking and petting are morally wrong. Why? Because such behavior is the beginning of making love, often called foreplay … In the boy, the penis begins to harden and become erect. Semen begins to come out of the penis. In the girl, there’s a moistening of the vagina, to prepare her for the penetration of the penis… You can’t prevent this from happening… The problem is that once you begin…it becomes very hard to stop.”
(H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [Sexuality — A Powerful Drive], 1992, p. 21)

… Bob wants to touch Joan’s breast and genital area, but Joan is afraid. She doesn’t think that would be right, but she really feels that she’s in love with Bob and she doesn’t want to lose him. …What should she do?”
(H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [It’s OK to Say No.], 1992, p. 23)

… a girl can become pregnant without having sexual intercourse…. If a boy and a girl are petting and the penis is placed close to her vagina, but not in it, there is every chance that some of the semen will begin to come out of the penis, even if he doesn’t ejaculate, because the penis is being sexually stimulated just by touching the vagina.

Chances are you will not get these diseases if you are not sexually active or have engaged in oral sex, which is genital kissing or climaxing in the mouth…
(H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [Consequences], 1992, p. 26)

… for example, someone might put their [sic] hands down your pants and touch your genitals or maybe put their [sic] hands under your blouse and fondle your breasts. If this is done against your will, you will have every right to stop this person. Mrs. Miller continues…
(H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [Your Right to Respect], 1992, p. 37)

… Shortly before the baby comes, the bag of water…breaks open and serves to lubricate the birth canal so the baby can move through it easier. [As she speaks, a drawing of the genital area of a woman, legs apart, appears. A head slowly emerges from the vagina.]…
(H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [The Miracle of Birth], 1992, p. 38)

Despite these detailed explanations, the Facilitator’s Manual suggests that the teacher show yet another film on birth (“Assure the students that if they feel nauseous they may leave the room.”). The study sheet asks the boys, “how you feel about a women giving birth” and the girls “how you feel about…becoming a mother.”
(H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [The Miracle of Birth], 1992, p. 38)

Lest we too become nauseated, let us turn our attention to Planned Parenthood’s philosophy illustrated by In God’s Image. First of all it should be remembered that Planned Parenthood is the enemy of the Church and the family. Planned Parenthood considers that the child is a threat to an individual’s self-fulfillment, and identifies the big social problem as that of teen pregnancy — not teen impurity. The supra virtues of Planned Parenthood are power, knowledge, and control — the good life. It’s business is counseling and providing contraception and abortion. Planned Parenthood believes that the world is overpopulated. It believes that the purpose of sex is recreation and pleasure. Planned Parenthood sees nothing private about sex and considers the use of sex an autonomous right of the person. Please consider the following examples from In God’s Image in light of the philosophy of Planned Parenthood:

Example 1 — Anti-Church, Autonomous Morality, Anti-Pregnancy, Anti-Child

If you decide you are going to have intercourse, you have to make dozens of decisions, many of which go directly against the teaching of God and our Church. You will have to live the rest of your life with the consequences of these decisions…Will you use birth control or not? If you don’t, and a baby is conceived, who will pay the hospital bills and for the care of the child for the rest of its [sic] life? [Note the implication that contraceptives always work.] Who will raise the child? Will you get married? Can you afford to quit school? What kind of a job can either of you get to support the family? Will it be best for the child to be given up for adoption to a couple who really want it [sic] and can support it [sic]? If you decide not to get married, will you… (H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [Sexuality — A Powerful Drive], 1992, p. 22)

The above quotation overlooks the spiritual death of the child caused first by this decision to fornicate! (Its oversight renders the message that premarital sex is not always sinful.) It renders contraception a personal choice, without labeling it sinful. It depicts pregnancy and the child as a huge problem, an interference, a nuisance.

Example 2 — Anti-Family Bias (Liberation)

… In the “Parent Video,” she tells them not to “overact” when the child reveals what happened, because the parent can always talk to the teacher about it later. She further admonishes parents to “respect your child’s right to disagree with you…. You can respect their opinion without agreeing with it.”
(H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [Overview/Parent Video], 1992, p. 6)

By the above quotation, Mrs. Miller plants the seeds to drive a wedge between the parents’ vocation of handing down the Deposit of Faith and the children’s privilege to receive it. Instead, the parent is advised to respect every error or heresy — every evil — because the child may choose to disagree with the Faith.

Example 3 — Knowledge — The Supreme Value

… Mrs. Miller asserts, “You won’t hurt [the children] by giving them too much information.” Too much information is exactly what she gives them.
H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [Overview/Parent Video], 1992, p. 3)

Example 4 — Knowledge and Anti Child Bias

She quotes a crude line from a teen movie (“You lay, you pay”) and adds, “…you will pay in some way, mentally, physically, psychologically, financially. Maybe in all these ways. Maybe now, maybe later. You may get off easy or get off hard. But eventually you will pay for your actions.”
(H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [Teens, Babies, and Marriage], 1992, p. 24)

One such way of paying is having babies: “But why such high numbers of teen pregnancies?” Her answer is pure PP: “Lack of education on the part of the teenagers.” (Pope Pius XI said teens get into trouble sexually not because of ignorance but because of weakness of will and poverty of spirit.)
(H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [Teens, Babies, and Marriage, 1992, p. 24)

Example 5 — Miller’s Use of Planned Parenthood’s Poster in Introduction Section of “Teens, Babies and Marriage”

“Teens Babies and Marriage (Time 17:30 min) Babies having babies, a Planned Parenthood cliche. is a major social problem. Patricia Miller…emphasizes the importance of a strong self-identity as the basis for lasting relationships and responsible adulthood [advertising].
H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [Teens, Babies, and Marriage], 1992, p. 24)

“Babies having babies” was a major campaign poster developed for Planned Parenthood a few years ago – to advocate abortion. Mrs. Miller uses it for an advertising “lead” in her video “Teens, Babies, and Marriage.” Doesn’t this slogan -used by the enemy of the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church itself via the Franciscans with the cooperation of the Archdiocese of Boston, say it all? That is, pregnancy is a problem – and abortion is the quickest fix to that problem.

Example 6 — Birth Control — A Mixed Message

Parents will wonder where Mrs. Miller really stands on birth control when they read this message in the Facilitator’s Manual:

This lesson is an attempt to acquaint students with the teachings of the Church in the area of birth control. In no way is it intended to endorse the use of birth control or sexual intercourse. We need to make this clear in the presentation of the material. It is essential that we be honest and objective in our presentation. Do not use scare tactics. …While there may be serious physical consequences of their use, used under a doctor’s supervision, most of the methods are safe for most people. It is also essential that the teacher not interject personal biases.
H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [Birth Control/Self Control], 1992, pp. 34 & 35)

Example 7 — Desensitization and Desacralization Process — The Private Becomes Public

Mrs. Miller says, “…having good feelings about your own body is a very important part of your self-image. Today we’re going to understand and appreciate what a marvelous creation of God your body is. God even gave animals great bodies” …

Therefore, “you must learn some of the terms and functions that refer to your own body as well as those [of] the opposite sex.” …

Obviously aware that she is violating the children’s innate, God-given sense of modesty, Mrs. Miller lays a “guilt trip” on them, admonishing them to overcome their uncomfortable feelings and not to giggle.

After this manipulative speech, she directs them to label the female organs on their work sheets as she explains them: uterus, Fallopian tubes, ovaries, egg (ovum) and birth canal. She also discusses the vagina, urethra and anus: “It’s important that you know…and use these terms without embarrassment.” (This is basic SIECUS/Planned Parenthood dogma).
(H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [The Fabulous Female], 1992, p. 11)

Example 8 — Purpose of sex

Mrs. Miller defines the purpose of sex as pleasure and growth, missing its intrinsic sacramental nature. This, of course, leads to endorsing homosexuality as normal, and masturbation as only sinful when excessive.

Example 8a — Sex is for pleasure:

God created sexual intercourse as a means of pleasure and growth. Our Creator intended it to be a bond which enables husband and wife to love each other totally.
(H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [Sexuality: Something Special], 1992, p. 9)

Mrs. Miller has left out entirely the procreative purpose of marital intercourse.

Example 8b — Masturbation:

Having identified pleasure as the good to be sought, it is no wonder she shares Planned Parenthood’s belief that masturbation can be a sign of an emotional problem if it becomes excessive. Instead of teaching its objective evilness, Mrs. Miller declares:

The Church teaches that masturbation can be sinful. One of the problems with masturbation is that it is self-centered. We’re thinking of giving and receiving pleasure only for ourselves. That’s why the Christian way of life discourages masturbation… (H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [We’re Not Sex Objects], 1992, p. 17)

I’m tempted to ask Mrs. Miller if one can masturbate while writing a check to a charitable organization. That way, pleasure comes while one thinks kindly thoughts of others!

Example 8c — Homosexuality agenda:

Likewise, when the purpose of sex is pleasure, homosexuality becomes just another lifestyle. Homosexuals are just born that way. No expectation is held for them to change or repent. Of course, they are victims of discrimination. The H.L.I.’s critique comments: “The aim of this video seems much the same. Nowhere does it warn students how serious the spiritual, mental and physical consequences of homosexual acts can be…” In God’s Image video quotes:

“… A homosexual person is just like you and me and he or she has feelings and sensitivities … He or she can be hurt deeply…. we’re speaking of real people here. People who study and work at jobs and happy and successful in life.”

… I taught a boy who thought he might be a homosexual person. This boy wasn’t weird or strange. He didn’t wear any makeup or dress in women’s clothes. He was just a nice, ordinary guy…[he] was…

So let’s start respecting people and…stop all this endless, hurtful stereotyping…. It’s just not the way a true Christian should act.

There is no sin in being a homosexual person. But the Church does consider that the inclination…can lead to serious sin. The question of sin comes up when we talk about sexual activity between homosexual persons, because the Church sees this as behavior which leads people away from their friendship with Christ. Our Church also teaches that we must treat every person, including homosexual men and women, with compassion. …That means we don’t judge. That’s God’s department. [Note the brief, sketchy presentation of the difference between the inclination, which is not sinful, and the acts, which are always objectively sinful.]

… life can be difficult for the Catholic homosexual person. … We can help ease the loneliness that homosexual persons feel by being a caring friend…. But the best thing we can do for them is not to make fun of them. [Wouldn’t the best thing be to help them break their addiction to their deadly vice? It is a spiritual work of mercy of “admonish the sinner.”]

… every homosexual person does not choose to be this way. They just are. Let’s not make life more difficult for them by our uncaring, our superior attitude…. even having a homosexual experience with someone does not make us a homosexual [but objectively, it does make one a sinner].
(H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [Homosexuality The Christian Attitude], 1992, pp. 28-30)

Example 9 — Partnership complete

Planned Parenthood completes the alliance with the Catholic Church in In God’s Image. H.L.I.’s critique contains Mrs. Miller’s referral samples, her instructions, and H.L.I.’s own observations and is quoted below in full:

In the Facilitator’s Manual, she instructs the teacher to write Homosexual, Heterosexual, Lesbian, Bisexual and Prostitute on the board, telling the children they will write the definitions afterward. She urges teachers to obtain additional information on sex diseases, especially The Surgeon General’s Report on AIDS. C. Everett Koop’s Report (1986) details anal sex, oral sex and other perversions, and preaches condom use; these practices are sinful and the Church condemns them. The Report also suggests that people contact several militant homosexual organizations which distribute pornographic AIDS “education” pamphlets. On the last page of the student study sheet, note what Mrs. Miller thinks 12- and 13-year-olds should know:

…we know that [AIDS] is transmitted through sexual intercourse with an infected person and also through the sharing of needles that drug abusers use to shoot drugs. …It can be transmitted through…shooting steroids, ear piercing, and tattooing. Mothers with AIDS can infect their babies through their breastmilk. At this time homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, and intravenous drug users have the highest rate of infection. …(A homosexual is a man who is sexually attracted to other men; a lesbian is…a female homosexual, and a bisexual…is sexually attracted to both women and men.) This rate of infection, however, is shifting … Prostitutes who have had sex with bisexual partners are now passing it on to the heterosexual population… Heterosexuals are now infecting their girlfriends, boyfriends, wives, and husbands, unknowingly…some of those with the AIDS virus either don’t know they have it yet, or they deliberately do not tell their sexual partner because they want the money that selling sex provides them … Persons who have sex with multiple partners are placing themselves in danger of death.

Should you suspect that you have any of these diseases, talk to your parents. If you can’t do this, then contact a doctor …or…your local [pro-contraception, pro-abortion] public health clinic…The clinic can help you free of charge and will respect your privacy [i.e., not tell your parents]. Here is the National STD Hotline Toll Free Number [operated by the American Social Health Association, with information provided by the pro-contraception, pro-abortion federal Centers for Disease Control] should you have any questions: 1-800-227-8922.

The very best way to be sure that you do not become infected…is to wait until you are married before you engage in sexual activity. This abstinence is called chastity, and it is a virtue not a curse. Married couples who remain faithful to each other do not contract these diseases.

(Parents should know that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) gave $200,000 of their tax dollars for, among other things, “Hot, Horny and Healthy” workshops that included “condom races”: people competed to see how quickly they could fit a condom over a dildo. Another CDC grant ($800,000) went to a homosexual group called the National Association of Black and White Men Together, which has 1,200 members in 27 chapters.)
(H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [Consequences], 1992, pp. 26 & 27)

To place myself “in the shoes” of the student (who might be concerned about STDs, etc.), taking the advice found in the material supplied by the Religious Education Office of the Archdiocese of Boston, I turned to the subject of “Clinics” in The Yellow Pages 1992-1993, pages 304-310. I found six pages of abortion, contraception, and sterilization services. (The one substantial ad I placed there for Pregnancy Help, plus a couple of pro-life one liners, was tucked in among the giant abortion ads. I also discovered that Charles St. Circle uses our name [Pregnancy Help] in their abortion ad, thus, taking some of the punch out of our modest attempt to compete.)

Feeling this heavy “pit” in my stomach, I decided to call the hotline that Mrs. Miller suggested through the courtesy of the Religious Education Office of the Archdiocese of Boston and the Franciscan Press. The phone number is (1-800-227-8922). As Shepherd, I suggest you take your own suggestion: Don’t identify yourself (they assure you it isn’t necessary), and ask them if they recommend the use of condoms in the prevention of STDs. When I did this, expecting the worst, I was still not prepared to listen to the prepared speech on how to do perverted sex “safely.” The Archdiocese is currently sending its young teenagers to abortion clinics and to pornographic referral advice, courtesy of In God’s Image.

Let us pause to pray and to remind ourselves what our Fathers of the Church say about abortion:

Therefore from the moment of its conception, life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes. (Abbott, Documents of Vatican II, Gaudium Spes, 51, p. 256)

Examples — New Age

Only the anger I feel at In God’s Image and the deep love I tender for Christ’s mother, Mary, makes me continue to “finish off” this wicked, wicked series. As mentioned before, theology in In God’s Image is corrupted with New Age ideas.

Example — Anthony De Mello, S.J.

As depicted earlier, the video “The Marvelous Male” reveals extremely graphic sexology. Directly following this video, students are given a work sheet.

At the beginning of the student work sheet is a quotation from Fr. Anthony De Mello, S.J.: “If you wish to see God, look attentively at creation. Don’t reject it; don’t reflect on it. Just LOOK at it.” [Apparently, what the class is to look at is the extremely graphic illustration of male genitalia — an external front view and an internal side view — on the same page].
(H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [Getting Help], 1992, p. 15)

Fr. Mello, who has written and lectured extensively on exercises to achieve “altered states of consciousness,” in one of his books advises:

… the reader to choose any object to represent God. “Having chosen your symbol,” he advises, “stand reverently in front of it. …Say something to it. …Now imagine that it speaks back to you….What does it say?” (p. 80
(H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [Appendix] 1992, p. 46)

Doesn’t Mrs. Miller infer, through Fr. De Mello, that the male sex organ is God? Here we have the repeat of the classic sin! Man “names” God rather than man receiving his name from God. Man tries to become God and the “trying” is the original and ongoing primordial sin.

Fr. De Mello reflects the same concept in another quotation in Mrs. Miller’s series. Christian Attitude: “Cut the coat to fit the person. Don’t cut the person to fit the coat.”
(H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [Appendix], 1992, p. 45)

It is sad and interesting that this quotation should appear in the homosexuality section. The obvious message to God from man is: “Take me as I am, God, because I’m not planning on changing.”

Compare Fr. De Mello’s tailoring perspective with Dom Augustin Marie, O.S.B.’s comment in which he quoted the saintly Bishop of Geneva: “The wicked man has always broken the yoke of God’s law and said: “I will not serve” (Jer. 2:20). That is why God reproaches him for “having set his heart as the heart of God” (Ez. 28:2); for the rebellious spirit wishes his heart to be master of itself and his own will to be sovereign like the will of God. He does not want the divine will to rule his own, but wishes to be absolute and not dependent in any way” (Monastere Saint-Joseph De Claival, Newsletter, July 11, 1992). Fr. De Mello, as well as In God’s Image, is obviously in deep spiritual trouble.

In Pagan culture, we find man worshipping false gods. In many cases, however, there was a certain integrity about the worship. It was “other” directed; it was service, gratitude, and fear oriented. New Age, however, claims that man turns to himself, and forms the God to be as he wishes — even a male sex organ.

Sample — Mary Daly

Mary Daly, is quoted on the study sheet for “The Fabulous Female.” Much of her writings consists of wild feminist rantings and ravings against both God and men. She is an admitted “hag” (witch), lesbian and worshiper of “the Goddess.” Her books reek of hatred for all religions, especially Christianity. Sadly, she is listed as an associate professor of theology at Jesuit-run Boston College
(H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [Appendix], 1992, p. 44)

One remark of Mary Daly’s is particularly revealing of Daly’s intention. In her book, Pure Lust (1984), Daly says that the fallen angels are “important inspirers and allies of women, because they were the first to reject the Father God of Judaism and Christianity” (Little, First Things, 1992, p. 24.). Daly is quoted in In God’s Image on a study sheet following the graphic video “The Fabulous Female.” The study sheet depicts the female reproductive system and the menstruation process. The quotation says: It is the creative potential itself in human beings that is the image of God
(H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [The Fabulous Female], 1992, p. 12)

Here we see theology distorted. This quotation ignores the human person (male and female) — called to image God in sacrament — as God defines. Instead, Daly (and Miller) takes ownership of the creative potential in man — to know, of course, that which God said we were forbidden to know — that is, who God is, and what He knows. The question is “Who calls the shots?”

I conclude Mrs. Miller’s distortion of Theology In God’s Image by quotes from the H.L.I. critique. It concerns prayer:

… You might make some wrong choices during this time, things that you really regret… We know that God forgives us if we are sorry, so shouldn’t we forgive ourselves, as well as each other. [Note: no mention of sin or the Sacrament of Penance.]

… You might be really angry. Well, tell God you’re angry… It’s all right to get mad at God. Just be sure you give God the chance to explain things…

Many times I’ve told God, “God, I really don’t think this is fair. She’s such a good person. Really, God, she needs a break.” Well, in my heart, I hear God saying, “I know, be patient. Something good will happen to her soon.” So I’m waiting, somewhat patiently, and if nothing happens in a couple of months, I intend to remind God again.

Mrs. Miller teaches the class to nag and scold God, yet never once mentions “Thy will be done.” Even more disturbing is the classic Modernism that follows. The question of how one knows when God answers a prayer comes up. Mrs. Miller replies, `Just listen, be still, and you’ll find thoughts popping into your head.’ She then relates how she decided to teach this course: I prayed a lot about it. “God, can I really do this? Should I do it? Will it help kids?” There was no immediate answer, no voice from Heaven saying, “Yes, go ahead.” But sometime later I came up with the idea of surveying my former students. I could ask them if they thought my class helped them. So I did. And I was reading their answers and I felt myself hearing God. …They said yes, my class had helped them. All at once I knew that this was God’s way of telling me, “Go ahead.” But this didn’t happen overnight. …I had to be patient…but here I am, making these videos.

A brief explanation of some of the basic tenets of Modernism will help explain just how evil the preceding discourse really is. The Modernists hold that religion is not the adherence of our intellect and will to truths revealed by God, but that all men have a religious “sense” or “sentiment.” This is part of the animal nature of man, very much like the sexual appetite. At times, many people have a certain feeling about religious dogma or morals that becomes a general consensus on the subject. The true religious leader is one who has “a feel” for what “the people” are thinking and articulates these ideas into a dogma or doctrine.

When Mrs. Miller prayed, she got the idea to poll her former students, among whom she found an overwhelming positive consensus. Once she discovered this consensus (among a group of immature teenagers), she knew it was God’s will that she produce the videos. Sadly, Mrs. Miller gives her young viewers the impression that somehow these sex ed videos have divine approval
(H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [Getting Help], 1992, pp. 14 & 15)

Mrs. Miller’s video also includes New Age music, The yin-yang symbol, and of course the overemphasis on self-esteem. Mrs. Miller’s bibliographical references include several New Age authors and books. An example would be:

Virginia Satir, author of Peoplemaking (1972), who is a well-known family therapist and the first director of training at the infamous Esalen Institute. She practices humanistic psychotherapy (man is the center of the universe and no values are permanent or absolute).

Peoplemaking, recommended by Mrs. Miller, contains this passage:

Anyone whom I have seen with any kind of coping problem or emotional illness also grew up with taboos about sex. Our genitals, our sex are integral parts of ourselves. Unless we openly acknowledge, understand, value, and enjoy our sexual side as well as that of the opposite sex, we are literally [sic] paving the way for masturbation, sexual intercourse, pregnancy, birth, menstruation, erection, prostitution, all forms of sexual practice, erotic art, and pornography [p. 106].
(H.L.I. critique, In God’s Image, [Appendix], 1992, p. 49)

Enough said about In God’s Image.