An image of the female body? Well that is just about the height of insult to the eyes of this church. Perhaps a supple fair-haired anglular young lad would have been more appropriate.

My husband wonders where the feathers came from? (God bless him for fixating on the wings.)

Kenneth,
Sounds like you are an anti-catholic bigot by your remarks. Do you have some colorful language for African Americans and Latinos as well? Or maybe you’d like to make some jokes about Jews? You are quite the classy individual. I bet you’re really a gas at parties.

Excellent point Moonshadow!! I am sure that no birds were harmed in the making of that costume! And yes, bless your husband…mine said “what wings?”

While I wish that this Joanna Krupa would stand up for the unborn in our society and not merely animals, I think we need to think about this ad from a balanced perspective. I would say that the female body is a beautiful creation of God (and this includes ALL regular women with no cosmetic and surgical “enhancements”). The catechism states that pornography involves a sexual act displayed to third parties. So the picture is technically not pornography since there is no sexual act involved. If showing nudity is a sin, then we should cover up all the paintings in the Sistine chapel.
I would not necessarily classify the picture as sacrilege. However, the context of a nude woman holding a crucifix in front of her is obviously VERY inappropriate, since we men should be focusing on living a holy lifestyle in union with our Lord Jesus, and not constantly thinking about women naked. And we have to remember that this ad came from a secular organization that does not understand Catholic teaching–so it is most likely done out of ignorance.
And the point of the ad is obvious to me, and requires a kind of “reading between the lines.” People who mistreat animals are more likely to mistreat and abuse human beings (men abusing women). And as Christians we should remember that. To not know that is to deny the human condition. Instead of defending our unconscious pride, we Christians should admit in all humility that we are not perfect people; and we must stop trying to get revenge on people who insult or hurt us by attacking back (which indicates lack of trust in God–have any of you noticed that Donohue often seems angry interviews? He needs to consider retiring). And drawing attention to these controversies only makes people who oppose the teachings of the Church even stronger; and it’s probably better to ignore them. While the ad is inappropriate, we can still learn something from it. Sorry that this is a long comment, but I like writing things that make people think.

I like to think I’m more versatile than an “anti-Catholic bigot.” Maybe an “anti-Abrahamic bigot.” or even “anti-exclusivist dogma bigot,” but I concede those don’t have the same sound-byte resonance. Like most of the anti-Catholic bigots these days, I used to be one, so it comes from an insider’s view of someone who has seen the emperor’s new clothes as opposed to a Know Nothing dislike of Irish or Italians that used to underlie anti-Catholic bigotry.
Actually I have a great deal of respect for those who live the faith in the trenches day to day, even those who I disagree with. I have zero respect for the institutional church and the child-trafficking pharisees whose obsession with fetuses and other’s sex lives has grown to the total exclusion of virtually all of the core lesson’s of Christ’s life.
Yes, the church writes lovely white papers about poverty and peace and justice, but I never see the wailing and gnashing of teeth over these issues as I do over the prospect of gay people getting civil rights. No politician has been called out and essentially excommunicated for casting a pro-war vote or for policies which ignore and in fact eagerly exploit the misery of the poor. I’m familiar with the theological hair-splitting the church does to distinguish these issues, and I’m not impressed.
I have utter contempt for bloviating hacks like Donohue who make a living out of endless outrage and a persecution complex. Persecution of Christians used to mean the real deal – torture and execution. These days, you get to cry persecution at any social criticism or not getting your way 100% of the time in a pluralistic society.
I don’t have problems with blacks or latinos or Jews because they’re not trying to impose their own sectarian version of Sharia law over every aspect of my country and my life. Blacks and latinos and Jews aren’t operating as a tax-free Fortune 500 coporation funnelling huge sums of untraceable money to manipulate our political system on behalf of one party and to install themselves as an unelected third house of Congress. I’d be happy to leave the church alone if it were to ever extend us the same courtesy, and then Bill and the bishops could wallow in their Pualine misogyny to their heart’s content.

Did I read this right – the Playboy model called herself a “practicing Catholic”???????

I just sent a concise note to PETA thanking them for giving me an excuse to keep eating veal and lamb chops.

“Did I read this right – the Playboy model called herself a “practicing Catholic”???????”
Yes you did. She needs a lot more practice.
I’m with Mr. Flapatap. We’re making a roast pork tonight in honor of that wonderful organization.
Kenneth,
What, specifically, did the Pope not leave in your Christmas stocking? What have YOU been denied?
It usually boils down to:
1. Gay Marriage
2. Women’s Ordination
3. Abortion
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Mr. Flapatap:
You made me laugh out loud this morning. Thank you.

If more Catholic Girls looked like that, there would be many more practicing Catholic boys.4t9yn8

I am exhausted by the part of society that disrespects religions and thinks it is OK to lower morality by any means. What does a nude “praticing Catholic” covered by the most sacred symbol of Christianity have to do with adopting homeless pets, not eating red-blooded meat, animal rights and care etc? I am still shaking my head and “headed” for my rosay to say a pray for her and others like her and the people that created this advertisment. There is absolutely no excuse no matter how much spin PETA gives it.
May the Lords peace be with us all

Hmmm… I have a t-shirt which features a classically-styled wood-cut of Eve, in the Garden, with the serpent luring her to an apple. An Apple MacIntosh computer, to be precise. Eve is, of course, naked (well, covered with strategically arranged limbs and flowing tresses.)
The problem with the PETA ad is not that the girl is nekkid. It’s that the picture isn’t clever or funny.

Kenneth, Over the years I have come to learn that ex-Catholics are harder on the True Church than anyone else. However you take the cake.

What does Miss Krupa mean by ‘It’s understandable that the Catholic League is wary of another sex scandal…’? She either has no idea what the sex abuse scandal was or is trying to be clever and ending up sounding like she is trying to insult the Church. Shame on Miss ‘Catholic’ Krupa.

PETA isn’t really about freeing lab animals or saving cows from the butcher. It’s about in-your-face anti-Christian bigotry, as this disgusting piece of blasmphemy proves.

What bothers me is the freaky un-natural look to her boobies.

Actually, PETA took on the Jewish faith years ago when they unveiled their “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign which equated the killing of millions of chickens to the extermination of millions of Jews under the Nazi regime.
But if you’re not Catholic or Jewish, don’t feel left out. PETA sponsors many websites such as JesusVeg.com (click on the ‘links’ page to find your religion) and a separate IslamVeg.com to promote their meatless revision of all the world’s major religions and drive home their message that if you’re not a vegan (which is stricter than being a vegetarian), you’re ungodly and unworthy.
Joanna’s ad add the crucifix to other recently-slandered symbols of Christianity in PETA ads, including Jesus himself, Mother Mary and the Shroud of Turin.
Makes me wonder what part of ‘ethical’ PETA really understands.

And who exactly would be Joanna Krupa’s bishop!!!????
Sounds to me like he needs to get a few phonecalls about this lost sheep and make sure this “playboy queen” who claims to be a practicing Catholic is not showing up for communion!!!!

Playboy queen touting her Catholicism? Sounds like another celebrity role model we need to avoid.

Actually she is not posing nude. If you’ve heard Fr. Thomas Loya teaching on the Theology of the Body you’ve heard him talk about how it’s what is covered and how it’s covered that makes such things go from art to, well we know what… http://tinyurl.com/yzaekja

Bishop Fulton Sheen often used to say: “We profane what we no longer revere.” I would say that just about sums it up, from the cross (God forbid any of us “carry a cross” in this culture), to the dignity of the human body, which of course, properly understood, is sacred.
Look, I’m a student of JP II’s TOB, and the first to defend the Church against “prudery”, albeit not without “holy modesty.” We would be wise to remember the “purity of heart part.” Anyone who even thinks that this picture is anything but a blasphemy might want to consider some spiritual counseling. To think otherwise is to profane the sacred mystery , so to speak.
“To the pure all things are pure,” St. Paul said (Titus 1:15). But to those bound by lust, even the pure seems impure. Oh, how tragic when we label as ugly that which is beautiful!
FYI: THIS PICTURE ISN”T BEAUTIFUL, even for the pure of heart.

I don’t think God or Jesus would be offended considering that they made us naked. I wonder if any of the people so offended have even seen the picture. As a Christian and an animal lover, which I think should be synonymous since God made all creatures, I was not offended by the photo. In fact, it is quite beautiful and has an important message. As far as the model, again, Jesus kept company with far more controversial women than a mere playboy model. Attached is the link to the photo, if you’d like to see it to draw your own conclusions.

Maybe it’s me. Maybe I hang around with the wrong crowd. But I’m not aware of significant numbers of gorgeous women who walk around topless holding adorable little puppies while they’re also praying the rosary.
This seems — in the words of one of my colleagues — “really gratuitous.”
And full frontal nudity with a strategically placed cross is, at the very least, tasteless. It’s clearly designed to shock. And raise eyebrows (among other things…)
Dcn. G.

What else do you expect from a group that on the one hand splashes paint on people who wear fur and then kills 21,000+ animals due to “money issues?”

Fools go where angels fear to tread

Klaire misunderstood my post if s/he is responding to my comment about TOB. Fr Loya points out, as a trained professional artist who worked with nudes for years in art school, that it is strategically placed coverings of a nude body which turn the beautiful nude into something titillating. It’s the fact she is not in fact nude, but is strategically covered with the cross that turns her body into another, offensive, message.