Mexican Playboy Publishes Nude Virgin Mary on Cover

Mexican Playboy Publishes Nude Virgin Mary on Cover

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465904,00.html

Playboy has got into the Christmas spirit — by putting the Virgin Mary nude on its Mexican cover.
The controversial magazine’s latest festive offering was released Thursday.
The December issue features model Maria Florencia Onori posing as the Virgin wearing nothing but an angelic white cloth.
The release was timed for the day before Mexico’s traditional Day of the Virgin of Guadalupe, a celebration of an apparition of the Virgin in the town.
Its headline reads in Spanish: "We adore you, Mary."
Click here to see the cover at The Sun.

I’d hardly call that nude. It’s certainly inappropriate, but I’d guess it’s probably more tasteful than most of their covers. So we have Playboy pandering not just to the usual base instincts of magazine buyers, but the media as well in order to sell magazines. Then we have the Sun mischaracterizing the cover in order to make it sound more sensational and sell newspapers. And now we have Fox News getting into the act as well.

I think Playboy has misplaced Mexico’s feelings towards Mary just a little bit. :nope:

The mexicans are infuriated.

Playboy has issued an apology:

In a statement, Chicago-based Playboy Enterprises Inc said the Mexican edition of the magazine is published by a licensee, and the company did not approve or endorse 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 statement said.

reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSTRE4BC0DF20081213

This is horribly offensive.

I pray that some good will come out of it by helping people see that they have to choose sides in the culture wars. May it help people see that they can not read magazines like that and also serve God. May it help them see that these magazines are the product of the devil.

I’m sorry, Mary, that we people did that to you :frowning: Please pray for us that some good comes out of it.

How you can blame Fox news for reporting this is beyond me.

As poster #6 says this is horribly offensive!

It seems it’s just PC to offend Christians.

Mexican Playboy Magazine Apologizes for Nude Virgin Mary Cover
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,466565,00.html

I don’t believe the image on the cover itself is inappropriate (what may make the thing inappropriate is the intent behind publishing the image). It is not pornographic. The contents of the magazine probably do not meet the definition of pornography found in the Catechism either

2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

It’s not clear whether this definition would include PG-13 movies with non-explicit simulated sexual scenes as “display” may or may not imply an intent to display for the purpose of “illicit profit” by means of exploiting our base desire for “base pleasure”. What is clear is that only “sexual acts”, real or simulated between partners comprises pornography.

I agree with you that it is probably that Playboy was exploiting the Mexican festival and knew that the image whatever intrinsically it may have meant, would be interpreted by the media and others to be associated with the Virgin.

However, in charity to Playboy, their official statement denies that they had any intention to portray the Virgin:

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.”

[from the reuters link above]

Perhaps that was their intent, but in terms of foreknowledge, it’s implausible to me that they wouldn’t have known the association people would have made.

If you are against Playboy media, the best thing to do is to not post stories like this in forums. It generates free publicity. You are naiive if you think Catholics don’t purchase Playboy products or that others who may see this posted here don’t or didn’t but now will. Last I heard which was a while ago, Playboy is in some financial trouble. It’s quite possible that within a decade or so, it’ll just fade away.

If it were PC, there’d not have been an apology.

Again in fairness, Playboy stated: “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.”

True enough, but honestly does it sound credible? I think statement was aiming for plausible deniability, but fell short.

Upon further research, I believe their statement even if technically true is misleading (i.e. at minimum does not mention part of the truth) I explain it more in the other thread.

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=293531

nevermind.

While I think it is pretty weak as far as news value, I wasn’t blaming Fox News for reporting it. I was finding fault with what appears to be dishonest sensationalism - there is no nude Virgin Mary on the cover. I see that in an effort to continue to keep the story profile high, and appeal to the base instincts of the public, they’ve repeated the mischaracterization in the headline for the apology story.:shrug:

Does it actually say in the magazine that the women is supposed to represent Mary? Perhaps because she has a veil over head we are reading too much into it.

It’s an insult to Christians especially to Catholics it’s that simple. If you were a Catholic you would understand this.

This is degrading to the Mother of my Lord Jesus Christ.

For Catholics that don’t understand this I will pray for them and you too.

I’m trying to look & I don’t see virgin Mary anywhere. It’s a woman in a cloth… How despicable… We should stop women using towels after taking a bath, since they might look like Virgin Maries & thus desecrate her imagine.

In my opinion, Mary should be thankful, that woman looks really nice & not in a vulgar sense.

It is a provocative photo obviously intending to be Mary, regardless if she not actually technically nude. Putting a representation of Mary on a magazine of that subject matter is offensive even if it were not provocative. It is offensive and the magazine is lying that it was not intending to represent her.

The release was timed for the day before Mexico’s traditional Day of the Virgin of Guadalupe, a celebration of an apparition of the Virgin in the town.
Its headline reads in Spanish: "We adore you, Mary."

Yes they did mean it to be Mary.

How can I explain this to you? Let’s see if Playboy took put a picture of your mother on the cover would you find this offensive?

The Blessed Virgin Mary is our Spiritual Mother and this cover is offensive to Catholics.

This is degrading to the Mother Of God!

That paper would have been annihilated had it a Muslim woman or something mocking Mohammed.

Atleast Catholics/Christians seemt o have restraint, even when shameful publications are printed.

That’s a pretty poor analogy: since they did not take a picture of my mother. A better example would be if I were an orphan & they took a photo of a girl & said it would represent or be in honour of my mother. Which wouldn’t make sense SINCE SHE IS NOT & I wouldn’t be offended.

This is degrading to the Mother Of God

Oh & I’m sure icons in Church portraying her breastfeeding ar not…

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.