"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.

[TotusTuus]

”God is not bound to the sacraments but we are”

I think it derives from St. Thomas Aquinas.

[seemoAR]

We can all imagine what he would have looked like and it wouldn't matter. Jesus came to this Earth as an average appearing Middle Eastern Jew. The Jews were God's Chosen people. He would have all the characteristics of a Jew. I do believe a blue-eyed halo wearing blonde would have stood out in the crowds.

[D-fendr]

I think you’re likely safe on the “blue-eyed, blonde” statement; however, “average-looking” is a conclusion based on evidence not in hand.

If I had to guess, I would guess he was above average in looks and definitely charismatic.

;)

[seemoAR]

Why did Judas have to betray Jesus with a kiss if he was an Adonis. Jesus came to his people as an average human man. I doubt anyone would see anything out of the ordinary about him. He could slip away from crowds without anyone noticing. Jesus is important for what he did for us and said to us, not for his looks. I know who he is and what he has done for me, I don't need to see a painting or a statue that supposedly shows him. In time, I will see him face to face. ;0)

[D-fendr]

I think they could have recognized Jesus without the kiss, by how He and those around Him interacted, but..

Do you visualize Jesus when you pray or converse with Him? I’d be interested to hear how He appears to you.

No, I didn’t have Adonis in mind, not youthful or classically handsome, certainly not muscled or “buff”. I imagine something more like someone who appears older than their age, and as for, as I said, charismatic, I mean that in terms of presence, force of character... these things come from inside.

This wouldn’t prevent Him from slipping away from crowds.

I just believe that there was somehow something different in His presence than the “ordinary.”

And you’re right, it’s not necessary to have a “correct” image, or any image at all. I’m interested that many people do and I’m interested in the history of images of Christ, Mary, the Saints.

thanks very much for your reply...

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

I looked at the picture. As a Catholic raised in an Irish family, there is no question whatsoever that this picture is meant to reference the Virgin Mary.

[seemoAR]

Actually I don’t think I visualize Jesus when I pray. The Jesus in my Bible came as an ordinary man to minister to ordinary men and women. If Jesus did carpentry work, he would probably have been muscular. Many paintings? of Jesus show a man that is almost feminine. The Bible does mention some other men as being handsome. I don’t remember it mentioning anything about his appearance.

[Screaming_Gerbil]

I doubt Mary had Breast Augmentation.

The model's breast that is visible looks like a breast that has undergone a boob job - too perfectly rounded, not pear shaped like a natural woman's breasts.

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00678/marymain_678935a.jpg

[RichInOC]

Well, she was Maria, and she was undoubtedly blessed. And two out of three ain’t bad.

[D-fendr]

thanks for your reply..

I’m not sure about “ordinary man”... I think we’d have to get into some theology or Christiology there. Certainly, there was something not ordinary about Christ.

But, yes, we don’t have pictures or description from scriptures. That makes the early iconography more interesting to me.

thanks very much for your posts..

[D-fendr]

Yes, the magazines apology is quite disingenuous.

[seemoAR]

Satan was described as being the most beautiful angel. Jesus’s outward appearance wasn't important since it wasn't mentioned. He could have chosen to be an Adonis or the most ugly man that ever walked.

[D-fendr]

Beauty is also from God.

Outward appearance is not precisely what I’m getting at, it’s the inward shining through.

And, if you look at some of the early Christ Pantocrator icons or representations of the Shroud of Turin... I wouldn’t call these “beautiful” or “handsome”, though I wouldn’t call them “ordinary” either.

[seemoAR]

I searched for “Christ Pantocrator”. It seems the earliest remaining ones are from Italy. The earliest one was painted centuries after Jesus lived on earth.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

And those who worship the flesh will die with it.

That’s all it ever was intended to do in the first place. Tempt the faithful to the sins of the flesh.

And it will all go away so quickly and leave them with empty souls with nowhere to go. Well without a good place to go that is......

[D-fendr]

I have a copy of it that’s much more recent, it continues to be copied throughout the centuries.

Some of the earliest remaining scripture we have dates to the third and fourth century also. Both scripture and icons are copies of copies. To me this doesn’t invalidate them.

But these icons of Jesus and Mary, and the shroud of Turin, etc., are matters for the individual and, as you say, not necessary for our faith; it may be helpful to some and not to others.

For me, my Pantocrator is a likeness of my view of Christ and a means of prayer and constant remembrance. I also have a photo of my deceased mother and she is the most beautiful woman in the world. Perhaps it is just that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

thanks again..

[D-fendr]

That’s all it ever was intended to do in the first place. Tempt the faithful to the sins of the flesh.

Precisely. And to attempt to tie it to the mother of our Lord is high blasphemy. It is a good sign I think that they feel they have to backtrack - it must be hurting their pocketbook.

thanks for your reply..

[seemoAR]

I wonder how a person that was blind at birth prays. Then again, does it even matter as long as a wrong number isn’t dialed and a connection is made to the right person?
Peace, good will towards men. ;0)

[D-fendr]

That’s a very interesting question, and I think your conclusion is right on.

I wonder how this person would “picture” light in their mind. I was just reading a collection of scripture about “divine light”. It included St. John: “We declare to you what was from the beginning... what we have seen with our own eyes, what we have looked at.. and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us... This is the message we have heard from Him and proclaim to you that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all...”

Peace to you also...