• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Priest: Playboy cover resembling Mary 'desperate,' 'blasphemous'

I think this magazine cover has accomplished exactly what it set it out to do: create controversial art. If post-modern art isn't stirring up opinions, then it's not doing its job. In the case of Playboy, as is the case with many of its past issues, controversy creates sales. Another perfect example is this one, where Lil Kim used the politicization of Islam to make a juicy front cover that caused a lot of controversy. No one rioted over it, but it was still taken seriously by people of the Muslim faith.

It's definitely insensitive to create front covers that mix sex with religion, but that is partly the message. They are two elements that traditionally don't belong together, which is precisely why it gets used and why it succeeds in irritating people. Playboy is an industry that thrives on what religious would call blasphemy or hedonism, thus it's going to have imagery that the religious won't agree with.

The religious people who become annoyed about this become part of the viral marketing that gets more copies sold. For every person who is shouting about how inappropriate it is, there is going to be another person who is given the idea to go buy a copy!
 
Moderator's Warning:
Although the tone of this thread seems to be slightly improving, I have no choice but to do my job, in regards to a few posts here.

A quick point though. If you see an offensive post, please report it, and move on, rather than egg each other on.

The feature is not working for me. Nothing happens when I hit the "send report" tab.
 
Very tasteful art.
 
I can see how this might offend there. Mary is centered in Mexican culture as a very holy and pure figure. She is the Virgin Mother and is worshiped heavily as part of their very catholic country. The photographer knew that and as someone mentioned just wanted to create controversy and sell magazines. Especially how they put the magazine out right before a huge celebration in the name of Mary. Whatever the case it doesn't bother or offend me but I do think it was somewhat tasteless in the way it was done and the timing of the release.
 
But Catholics aren't going to bomb a Playboy office because of it.

True. Some Catholics would rather spend their time molesting little boys. :3oops:
 
True. Some Catholics would rather spend their time molesting little boys. :3oops:

How intelligent and insightful. :roll:
 
Should they be allowed to do this? Yes.

Should they do it? No, they should have more decency.

Pretty much sums up my view.

While I think this is one of the most beutiful covers of playboy I've ever seen, a truly artistic photo, I think the context is more of a problem.

You don't plaster an image of "the mother of God" on a wanking mag.

I can see why some are offended.



That being said, if this were a separate image, in it's own right, I would say that it is fantastic.

I don;t think it is blasphemous, but I would say it was innapropriate.

That being said, if it offends, it should not be purchased. And for the most part, those offended are not in the target audience anyway, so there is no real issue here (no pun intended).
 
I am guessing some of you are not into Naughty Nun Art. :)
 
Golly! What's next? A young girl lying in bed masturbating with a crucifix saying F me Jesus, F me?!!
 
The feature is not working for me. Nothing happens when I hit the "send report" tab.

Oh, I have to agree to a statement and check the little box. I got it now.
 
Rude people will always say, "Wow, you're being too sensitive" when called on their rudeness.

You're the one who is wrong for being so sensitive. They are not the one who is wrong for being rude.

It wasn't the new guy down the street's fault for not picking up the poop his dog just did on my sidewalk right at my gate. It was my fault for being overly sensitive about it. :roll:
 
I hope I'm not the only one who sees the irony in a Catholic priest getting offended by the Virgin Mary being portrayed on the cover of a magazine that is primarily used for masturbatory purposes.
 
PER the "Brothers of Jesus" issue....
Acts 1:
12
Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day's journey away.
13
When they entered the city they went to the upper room where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.
14
All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
15
During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said,
16
"My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus.


As you see--"brothers" is a term used to describe close associations--NOT necessarily LITERAL "brothers of the same parents." (Unless you think Mary birthed upwards of 120 baby boys.:doh)

This is why one needs an authoritative source for interpreting scripture. The Catholic Church has such an authoritative body appointed by Jesus Himself.
 
Last edited:
I can see how this might offend there. Mary is centered in Mexican culture as a very holy and pure figure. She is the Virgin Mother and is worshiped heavily as part of their very catholic country. The photographer knew that and as someone mentioned just wanted to create controversy and sell magazines. Especially how they put the magazine out right before a huge celebration in the name of Mary. Whatever the case it doesn't bother or offend me but I do think it was somewhat tasteless in the way it was done and the timing of the release.

She is NOT worshipped by Catholics. A common misconception.
 
True. Some Catholics would rather spend their time molesting little boys. :3oops:

Once again, people who have little information like to make such claims. From what I have read, pedophelia among priests is LOWER than in the general population. Don't let little facts like that affect your HATRED or anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom