"Playboy never meant to offend anyone..."

Deacon's Bench ^ | December 16, 2008 | Deacon Greg Kandra

[NYer]

Some of you by now may have heard about the cover of Mexico's Playboy magazine. To wit:

A nude model resembling the Virgin Mary on the cover of the Mexican edition of Playboy magazine, published only days before a major Mexican festival dedicated to the mother of Jesus, prompted the company's U.S. headquarters on Friday to apologize.

The magazine, which hit newsstands on Dec. 1 as ceremonies began leading to Friday's pilgrimage to the Mexico City shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe, showed a model wearing nothing but a white cloth over her head and breasts.

She is standing in front of a stained glass window with the cover line, "We Love You, Maria" in Spanish.

Well, that's certainly...different. If that didn't offend you, perhaps Playboy's explanation will:

"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 statement said.

Raul Sayrols, publisher of Playboy Mexico, said in a statement, "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."

Ah. Of course! It's the Renaissance! How could anyone have thought otherwise?

Could Playboy possibly be right?

You decide. Send the children out of the room and take a look at the cover for yourself.

H/T American Papist.

[GOPJ]

We don’t have to riot if we can get the rumor going that Playboy was going after Muslim women in a very subtle way...

[seemoAR]

Did Luke paint that picture?

[ReneeLynn]

No, I mean Renaissance with reference to the ‘Venus’ nudes in particular. I guarantee that woman does not have hips, thighs and a belly like those nudes. And I doubt the boobs are real either. Renaissance my foot.

[D-fendr]

It’s the “Theotokos of Vladimir” that some credit to St. Luke, some say that origin’s been disproved. It resembles th Black Madonna of Czestochowa said also to have been written by Luke as well as seven others by St. Luke and transported to India by St. Thomas before he was martyred there.

Luke is credited with being the Church’s first iconographer (excepting the ‘not-made-by-hands’ mandylion or Image of Edessa).

These icons are said to also bear resemblance to earlier paintings on cave walls.

Luke is reported to have first drawn both Mary and Jesus and to have done so at their home on, I believe, an oak table.

Icons of Mary and Jesus are relatively stable in the East, (see Christ Pantocrator) and medieval representations tended to follow these. The Shroud of Turin is also a close match in the case of Jesus.

So, who know, tradition says we have images/icons of Mary and Jesus from an early time. It may not be accurate to say “we don’t know what Mary (or Jesus)looked like.” Certainly, these icons would have the most provenance.

[seemoAR]

So, it may also be accurate to say we don't really know how Mary or Jesus really looked. Jesus didn't stand out in a crowd. He didn't have a halo suspended over his head. Many people think Jesus had long blonde hair and blue eyes. After all, there are pictures of him all over the world. ;0)
Judas had to betray him to the multitude. (ST. Matthew 26:48)
Jesus came into my life in the early 1950’s. I have never needed to know how he looked.

[jo kus]

I don’t know if that picture would have reminded me of the Virgin Mary if the title of this thread hadn’t told me. I could see some girl coming out from under the sheets before the VM.

Do you know what "Te Adoramos Maria" means? Note the background and the pose.

"We didn't mean to..." Only a moron would believe that. Not a soul in Mexico could miss this one if they tried...

Regards

[jo kus]

We don’t have to riot if we can get the rumor going that Playboy was going after Muslim women in a very subtle way...

The Muslims revere Mary more highly than any other woman in the Koran, to include Mohemmed's mother. If they were alerted, I'm sure they could provide some interesting 'rebuttal' to Playboy and their crap. Remember what some did when someone dared to put Mohemmed in a bad light in a comic?

Regards

[Uversabound]

Hi Folks, I think Jesus did not leave images or writings on purpose. He knew human beings tend to make idols out of everything.

I think he wanted to give his message the best environment to thrive without falling into known pitfalls of human misundertanding.

I hope that makes sense.

As far as the image on Playboy, it was intentional. It is human folly, God has important things to take care of!! He loves us much more than this childish picture could offend him!

[Ditter]

I am NOT in Mexico, I am NOT a Spanish speaker and I am NOT Catholic!

[seemoAR]

I believe you are correct. Some people seem to need man made images to pray to. After all, some people worship rocks. ;0)

[jo kus]

I am NOT in Mexico, I am NOT a Spanish speaker and I am NOT Catholic!

So what? The magazine cover was printed for the MEXICAN public. Not for you. ANY Mexican would immediately make the connection, since they understand Spanish and practically all of them have some Catholic background - and know who our Lady of Guadalupe is. Anyone who spoke Spanish would know. Anyone who had been in a church with stain-glass windows and statues would know... Anyone who knew of the symbols on the cover would instantly make the connection.

Regards

[Ditter]

I realize it was printed for Mexican people. I was speaking for MYSELF.

[D-fendr]

No, we don’t need to know how He looked; and, I know how He looks to me. :)

It may also be accurate to say we don’t know how Mary or Jesus looked. It may be accurate to say we have a lineage of representations begun by those who saw them, that others maintained, as they did scriptures, throughout the ages.

I do think we can rule out the blond hair and blue eyes though. :)

[jo kus]

I realize it was printed for Mexican people. I was speaking for MYSELF.

Thanks for your opinion... But why did you become so offended when I was not even refering to you???

Here is my post. Note, the context is the audience of the magazine, not you - since you are not Mexican or Catholic. "We didn't mean to..." Only a moron would believe that. Not a soul in Mexico could miss this one if they tried... Since you are neither, my comments don't apply to you...

Regards

[Ditter]

I guess I felt I had been roped into the “moron” group. If that is not what you intended then I misunderstood.

[jo kus]

I guess I felt I had been roped into the “moron” group. If that is not what you intended then I misunderstood.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. It is quite offensive to me and it is impossible to believe they didn't know what they were doing. Can't we have something that is sacred without some people looking to make a quick buck and ruining it?

Regards

[IrishBrigade]

I do think we can rule out the blond hair and blue eyes though. :)...

...I guess...though the Danes and Swedes are muttering amongst themselves...interesting tag line, by the way...”God is not bound to the sacraments but we are”

[D-fendr]

It’s interesting, to me at least, to ask people to describe how they see Jesus when they pray or talk to him. For most folks it’s difficult to carry on an inner dialogue without some visualization of the person, so most or many people do know what Jesus looks like - to them.

Maybe he is blond and blue-eyed to Swedes and Danes. ;)

I’ve never found the source of my tagline, though it’s been around for some time. I like it because it defines the sacramental life while including the sovereignty and mystery of God. It’s a short definition of the Church, IMO.

thanks for your reply...

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment

Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

[Dajjal]

bumpus ad summum