menu

PETA ad outrages Catholics

PETA ad outrages Catholics December 3, 2009

IF Joanna Krupa had been born a male, and was 15 years younger, he’d probably have frustrated Catholic priests gnawing on their knuckles and kicking holes in stain-glass windows.Krupa
But as the world’s sexiest swimwear model, Joanna’s succeeded in rousing a different kind of passion among devout Catholics: FURY!

America’s Catholic League is fizzing over animal rights group PETA’s latest shock-’em-into-action ad campaign—which features a naked Joanna sporting nothing but angel wings and holding a strategically placed crucifix.
According to this report, it’s all part of a drive exhorting the public to “be an angel for animals” by adopting, rather than buying, new pets.
Plus, there’s another ad in which a topless Krupa holds her dog, Rugby, in her arms, a rosary dangling from her right hand.
This, says the ever-whingeing Catholic League, is yet another example of the “improper” use of a sacred Christian symbol. The League most recently took issue with an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm, in which Larry’s urinary backsplash hits a painting of Jesus.
But Krupa is a Catholic herself, and she objects to this holier-than-thou stance.

It’s understandable that the Catholic League is wary of another sex scandal, but the sex we’re talking about pertains to dogs and cats.

Sex? What sex? I don’t get it.
Anyway, the model and Dancing With the Stars contestant added:

As a practicing Catholic, I am shocked that the Catholic League is speaking out against my PETA ads, which I am very proud of. I’m doing what the Catholic Church should be doing, working to stop senseless suffering of animals, the most defenceless of God’s creations.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is getting quite the reputation for using sex to convey its message. In January, NBC refused to air a PETA commercial during the Super Bowl in which a model appeared so smitten by her meatless lifestyle that she seemed ready to bed her vegetables.
The Catholic Church, it should be pointed out, has never gone a bundle on animal rights. According to animal liberationist Peter Singer:

There are a few laws indicating some awareness of animal welfare in the Old Testament, but nothing at all in the New, nor in mainstream Christianity for its first eighteen hundred years.

Paul scornfully rejected the thought that God might care about the welfare of oxen, and the incident of the Gadarene swine, in which Jesus is described as sending devils into a herd of pigs and making them drown themselves in the sea, is explained by Augustine as intended to teach us that we have no duties toward animals.

This interpretation was accepted by Thomas Aquinas, who stated that the only possible objection to cruelty to animals was that it might lead to cruelty to humans – according to Aquinas there was nothing wrong in itself with making animals suffer. This became the official view of the Roman Catholic Church to such good – or bad – effect that as late as the middle of the nineteenth century, Pope Pius IX refused permission for the founding of a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Rome, on the ground that to grant permission would imply that human beings have duties to the lower creatures.

"My bad.Apologies.He [Churchill] was put up to it by his chief advisorViscount Cherwell; One Frederick ..."

Priest accused of buying drugs & ..."
"No reply ?Am I too 'edgy' for you ?"

Priest accused of buying drugs & ..."
"Let's talk about how Churchill initiated the mass terror bombing of civilian populations as early ..."

Priest accused of buying drugs & ..."

Browse Our Archives