If we are going to criticize any religious denomination because some of its members are sometimes worst than non-religious criminals, sexual abusers, etc...then we must condemn them all without exception.
Some religious paintings showed naked bodies when they were made, later the nakedness of the people in the paintings were covered up because the priest in charge found then unmoral. later the nakedness were showed again by another priest who had a different opinion, and so forth...
Actually, there are some limits about where and when a naked body can be shown to the people in general. And this applies also to the readings of religious books. This is to say, what is the intention of the painter, the photographer, the writer, etc, and how such art is appreciated by the rest.
In the case of the Playboy magazine portrait of the young woman and the words of an article mentioning the virgin Mary in the same page, yes indeed, it may be some mischievous intentions of this publication company to create controversies around.
In order to understand better what is going on, I can say that if a paint the Christ crucified in a closest scenario of how Romans did such crucifixions, then I should paint the Christ naked and also the other two sentenced to death naked as well. Doing so I would create another controversy which may be approved by a historian who knows the procedures of such crucifixions and the rejection of most of the Christian religious denominations.
Who is right or who is wrong will depend of the rule of the society or of the person in charge over it. To me, art is art, even so, I enjoy the privilege to select what I want to see, hear, and read. In this case, I do find a provocation in such a portrait, but I still like that Playboy girl for the month of December.
