The good news is that the Chicago-based publisher has offered “sincerest apologies” for the cover, which came out in the December edition, timed for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, Our Lady of Guadalupe, and the Nativity–pretty much the Big Three for Mary.
As Bruce Tomaso at the Dallas Morning News tells it:
In its apology, Playboy said the Mexican edition of the magazine is published by a licensee, and that the parent company did not approve the cover.
“While Playboy Mexico never meant for the cover or images to offend anyone, we recognize that it has created offense, and we as well as Playboy Mexico offer our sincerest apologies,” the company said.
Raul Sayrols, publisher of Playboy Mexico, said: “The image is not and never was intended to portray the Virgin of Guadalupe or any other religious figure. The intent was to reflect a Renaissance-like mood on the cover.”
Hmmm….Not too sure about that. Not when your headline says “Te adoramos, Maria,” or, “We love you Mary.” The model is Maria Florencia Onori, so that’s their out. Frankly, the cover isn’t outrageous by Playboy standards, or even Victoria’s Secret catalogs. (I don’t know what’s inside, and if the “spread” does anything more explicit, in a religious sense. I suspect we’d have heard if it did.)
But that sense of decorum seems the final argument that this was intended as an icon of the Virgin. Anyway, what other Renaissance women was he talking about?
|
Previous Posts
Moving on, and many, many thanks...
So...my recent vacation and related absences also coincided with an offer from PoliticsDaily.com to cover religion for them, as editor Melinda Henneberger announces here in her roundup on the site's very successful first 100 days. That means, in short, that I'll have to sign off from blogging h
posted 8:29:24pm Aug. 02, 2009 |
read full post
»
Calvin at 500, Calvinism 2.0
If you thought you knew John Calvin--who turned 500 last week--you probably don't know enough. For example, that he was French, born Jean Cauvin. And if he was in fact scandalized by dancing, he was also a lot more complex than that. I explored the new look Calvin in an essay at PoliticsDaily, "Patr
posted 11:53:35am Jul. 16, 2009 |
read full post
»
Apologia pro vita sua...Kinda
In my defense, I've had computer outages and family reunions and a few days of single-parenthood, which is always a bracing reminder of what many parents go through all the time.
And this weekend it's off for a week's vacation.
Anyway, hence the long absence. Apologies to those who have chec
posted 10:51:36am Jul. 16, 2009 |
read full post
»
When Benny met Barry: "I'll pray for you!"
The first word via Vatican Radio and first image (that I saw) via Rocco:
Speaking to Vatican Radio, Press Office Director Fr. Federico Lombardi said "moral values in international politics, immigration and the Catholic Church's contribution in developing countries" were key topics of discussio
posted 12:54:28pm Jul. 10, 2009 |
read full post
»
Signs of the times: Obama's eye
Yes, this photo of Obama ostensibly eyeing a young woman (apparently a 17-year-old delegate from Brazil--where are her parents?!) at the G-8 Summit is the hottest Google search item. And of course the question of what Obama was thinking is a leading Fox News story.
So it goes, even as the
posted 12:26:05pm Jul. 10, 2009 |
read full post
»
|
posted December 16, 2008 at 3:18 pm
I’m not exactly sure how to write puking sounds, but that would express my gut reaction to this magazine and its cover. How horrible.
posted December 16, 2008 at 9:00 pm
It seems to offend against the PV and universal motherhood sensibilities the most, imo.
posted December 17, 2008 at 10:53 am
The people of the magazine can, however, apologize and say that the cover was unintentional etc. etc. for all are NOT FOOLS to fall into their ‘innocent’ remarks. Those who have eyes will recognize the True meaning of the magazine cover and likewise many such things/issues/matters that would keep arising quite often in this ‘GOOD’ world of ours which keeps huting the sentiments of our poor ‘True’ Christians. Although filled with rage after seeing the stuff, I could soon add “FATHER FORGIVE THEM FOR THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY DO”.
posted September 17, 2009 at 12:36 pm
for me this picture is artistic and beautiful.
we are not offended if we see a crucifixion with Jesus half naked on it especially in the altar of the church when God himself told us not to make an image of God in Ten Commandments, so why a photo which doesn’t even say it’s the Mother Mary. the problem with religion people, every truth and natural and scientifically proven are always taboo to their eyes. that is why terrorist can’t even see their wrongdoings because they think what they believe are the truth. isn’t it God himself said don’t judge? but every time our blood boils up we always put torch and forks on those people without even looking at the facts.