December 12 is one of Mexico’s most important holidays: It is the celebration of the Virgin of Guadalupe. And what better way to honor our Santa Patrona than gracing the cover of Playboy with Virgin Mary herself?
Well, sort of. This is María Florencia Onori, posing as Virgin Mary for this month’s Playboy Mexican edition, which in a matter of days has sold 80,000 copies, proving -once again- that print is not quite dead yet.
(Oh, and in case you were wondering: she is not the one who reportedly saved Oliver Atom’s life.)
MI BLOG ES TU BLOG 
Oh man…. I can totally see freaks from the Opus Dei and company protesting this. Bad, bad. La Virgencita de Guadalais is not something to mess with.
I don’t get offended easily, but I actually find this kind of offensive.
really? Did they really have to go there? Teta works all the time….not the virgen mary…
This is a kind of hate crime. It’s a desecration. To portray the Virgin Mary in this way. Catholics love the Virgin Mary, as people love their mothers and their children. This is an incredibly cruel thing to do to Catholics. Righteous anger is a good thing. I hope the Catholics in Mexico get violent over this.
Just curious, ghjk, but were you with the Muslims who got a bit testy over some cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed? Or is it only Christians who have the right to unleash holy tantrums?
Anyway, I don’t see how this should be any less offensive than people claiming to see the Virgin Mary on a slice of bread or in a rust stain on a concrete wall. Different people do different things with icons. But when one gives the icon more importance than the teachings and example of Christ, what does that say about one’s faith? Perhaps one is protecting something other than faith, because I don’t recall Jesus Christ saying anything about honoring his Father with violence or whining.
Oh boy… could this be another ABSOLUTAMENTELaura post? 😉
For sure Mr. Norberto will have something to say, but I dont think the issue will go as far as it would go if this were the US Hispanic version of Playboy.
Oh-oh I’m sure I just implied a bunch of stuff…
But…but..but….she was a virgin!
I mean, she wasn’t raped or anything, then some story made up to cover the 9month tracks that were swelling in her belly.
As for being offensive…a slice of bread is holy, this is….a woman’s body! Now that is an abomination according to Catholic thought, isn’t it?
and yet, 80,000 Mexicans (most likely auto-proclaimed Catholics) have bought it… interesting…
Whoever “self-proclaims” themself any religion yet does not practice it is both a hypocrite and a liar. So if 80,000 Mexicans were to purchase this knowing that it is wrong, then in reality they’re not really participants of the faith.
They probably have 80,000 mormons over there
I don’t like this theme that Playboy has going on…I see how they would try to use the celebration of the Virgin Mary and tie it in with their version of their Maria but…it just doesn’t seem right. WTH, it is Playboy after all and looks like 80,000 ppl bought it up.
Nonsense. Nobody was hurt by a bit of tasteless photography. If you don’t like it, don’t buy the crappy magazine.
Well, maybe religion isn’t so bad after all … 🙂
If the virgin Mary actually existed and looked like that, she wouldn’t be a virgin for long. I’d totally tap that.
it’s more offensive that people accept the idea that god knocked up a 14 year old and that’s totally okay
This is a kind of hate crime. … I hope the Catholics in Mexico get violent over this.
Total cognitive disconnect.
I’m compelled to go to church NOW. LOL! Posters ‘Greg Laden’, ‘Lolz’–I totally agree with you both. I believe I’ve found my calling–I’m starting a new church, and you’re both welcomed to join (membership requires that you each bring no less than two women of similar ‘stature’). LOL!
It’s refreshing to see that God had very good taste. Okay, okay…I can’t dismiss evolution, but if I were to believe that ‘Eve’ was created from a rib, and so forth, it’s obvious only a genious could have designed such an attractive being with such beautiful curves.
Don’t believe me? Think about it–Michael Angelo (my favorite sculpturer), Bennini, and other could only COPY such great ‘body’ of work.
LOL!
Paz said, “I don’t get offended easily, but I actually find this kind of offensive.”
Ron said, “I am greatly offended by the lack of full frontal nudity.”
Wow, now that’s gutsy!
But, to Troy “she wasn’t raped or anything” – what do you call it when someone impregnates a woman without her consent? God didn’t get Mary’s consent, after all. He simply announced it after the fact. Mary was raped – by God!
It’s pretty freaking stupid “Oh my God, look, it’s the Virgin Mary being not so virginal, LOL”. PlayBoy is too stupid to not play the controversy card to get attention.
No wonder God took her in a Biblical way… how could he resist?
Naked Bunny with a Whip Says:
December 13, 2008 at 12:15 am
“This is a kind of hate crime. … I hope the Catholics in Mexico get violent over this.
Total cognitive disconnect.”
No kidding. But Catholicism is not known for its rational cohesiveness.
Wow, I love free speech. This is really incredible and I’m glad to see a publication, pornographic or otherwise, that has the balls to do something like this.
Ron, I’m greatly offended by t-shirt and bras too.
People talk about lack of respect. Respect?!
How can ANYONE respect a church who does anything possible to allow the continued sexual assault of children (from their own ‘flock’, nonetheless)? As though that was not the most disgusting display of abuse of power, people who claim to have been sexually abused by priests (some claims real, some not), sell themselves for money to ‘alleviate’ the suffering—simply another term for having sold a piece of their ass to the church for a particular amount.
Please, don’t use the word respect and Catholic in defense of the Roman Catholic Church within the same sentence—it just makes you look even more mentally ill.
(in a post script for my last post):
The Catholic church said they were ‘sorry’, but refused to change the way sexual abuse is handled by the church, preferring instead to relocate and hide priests caught in the wrong.
Wake up, people. The Catholic church is NOT there for your benefit–it’s there to promote a dogma which continually tips political power to their hands.
If the Catholic church was really sorry, and was inclined to make real change, they would have implemented policies which protected the children and criminally prosecuted any and all priests found to have had sexual relations with children. Period. (Or they could all have castrated themselves–if memory serves me correctly, the Bible recommends to ‘cut-off’ that which makes you sin. Yes. I’m sure I read that a LONG time ago.)
One thought always come to the forefront when people mention Catholicism and Latino/Hispanics in the same sentence: I find it ridiculous that people actually buy into a religion, making it their own, even giving in to martyrdom or fighting to the death in defense of ‘their’ religion, when in fact Catholicism was a religion forced upon their ancestors by self-righteous, tyrannical, murderous SOBs.
You can cut the irony with a machete! LOL!
‘I was raised Catholic…before I entered the age of reason.’ – George Carlin
For all you idiots (like Paper Hand) who have posted that God raped Mary:
The angel visited Mary and told her what was to happen, but she had the choice to say no. Instead she said “Yes, I am a servant of the Lord; let this happen to me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her. (Luke 1:38)
You should really read the Bible before you comment on it, but then again, it does not have pictures, so maybe you can’t.
Mary did have a choice. Nevertheless, it bothers me that she was probably extremely young at the time–irregardless of how mature she could have been in her thinking, she would still be 15 yrs of age or so (a very young child in every sense of the word, even by today’s standards). I find that troublesome, especially in light of such a big decision. Most, if not all children of in their early and mid teens cannot possibly forsee how such decisions drastically affect a life later on. Anyone could try to rationalize this, but age and mental/emotional immaturity go hand-in-hand–it is a biological fact in the same manner that the laws of physics cannot be bent.
Dresden,
Your response is thoughtful, but with all due respect, arrogant. Who are we to question the Creator of the Universe? We are, after all, His creation.
We enter into very dangerous territory when we think we are smarter than God. It brings to mind this joke I heard.
A group of prominent scientists got together and decided they knew enough to run things now, so they told God that they no longer needed Him.
So God said let’s have a man-creating contest. The scientists agreed since they could now clone humans. God said “let’s do it like I created Adam, with dirt.”
One of the scientists bent down to pick up some dirt and God said “No, get your own dirt.”
Total cognitive disconnect.?
It’s called righteous anger, you dimwit. Let’s see the Jews mocked in this fashion. Cold day in hell before that happens. If you haters of Christianity want to prove that you have balls, go out in public and mock the Jews. Picking on Christians is cowardly.
Playboy US just apologized for the cover. Thought you anti-Catholic bigots should know:
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1250649220081213
I’m promoting the idea that anyone knows the creator of the universe, even less his/her/its’ character or intentions. But if you’re presenting the idea that Mary had a complete grasp of all that her decision entailed, well, that’s very arguable. The Bible does NOT present Mary as someone with extraordinary understanding of the universe or the world around her, but instead, she is presented as someone whom was willing to do something with the limited knowledge she had at the very moment.
If Mary was indeed a human with inherent limitations, I stress it’s easy to argue that asking someone of such a very young age to weigh such a life-changing decision borders on manipulation, or simply taking advantage of someone of such impressionable age. Perhaps if the task had been presented to someone much more mature, it could be seen as more acceptable.
If Mary was ‘enlightened’ as to the extent of her decision, that would be another matter. Of course, it makes no sense to venture into such exploration, given that the Bible does not mention any such extraordinary explanation every taking place.
(correction on my last post–it should begin with, ‘I’m not promoting the…’)
@Truth Seeker–In reference to your joke about Adam/Eve, I believe what is presented in Genesis is an oversimplification of such an event, if indeed such an event even took place. Think about it–the creation of the entire universe is summed up in a couple of verses, and all of a sudden it is narrowed down to the planet Earth–bypassing billions of years and multitudes of generations of living creatures–comfortably arriving to present day man and woman.
But that is another subject totally separate from the depiction of Mary on Playboy, thus I’ll exclude myself from entertaining it any longer.
@ghjk–I’m not anti-Catholic. Not exclusively, any way. I’m anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, anti-Islam, anti-Hindu, and anti- any religion which claims to have exclusive knowledge, or rights to claim superiority, or justification for oppressing opposing voices or twisting the minds of those who don’t agree with their dogma.
It is unfortunate that the U.S. and a few other countries punish anyone who voices public opposition to specific religious groups, using the political and enforcement power provided them by the people to bend those who do not share their religious views to their will.
Now THAT is bigotry.
Your ‘joke’ is a fiction constructed to match the previously determined punch line. It’s directed at smug believers to help reinforce their faith. Only the already deluded would think that it proves the religious know better than the ‘arrogant’ scientists.
When a god shows up for a conversation, who would belittle him? Scientists would be intrigued. They’d start asking hundreds of questions. How does this work, how does that work, could he show them the mechanisms behind his ‘miracles’. Somehow I think the god would prefer scientists to priests for his acolytes. For sure, the priests would have to scrap almost everything and start over. Including the creation story, such as it might be.
If you are seeking Truth in a holy text, there’s very little of it there for you. Honest.
@JohnnieCanuck–I admire your point of view. That is exactly what I like to convey in regards to what I do and don’t believe–that it would be to the benefit of everyone to set the record straight. Unfortunately, human nature has the bad habit of wanting to hold on to power by any means necessary, to the detriment of the entire civilization.
Truth seeker
I see no place in the bible where Mary was given a choice. She was told what would happen and she agreed. I didn’t see the archangel/angel asking any questions,only giving her the speel about luck
@JohnnieCanuck–I almost forgot to mention: Though I find it admirable, if we were out in public at this very moment, we would be in the same situation as Steven (I think his name was Steven, or Stephen, well, something like that)–he was stoned to death. What’s worse, he wasn’t directly questioning the validity of the claims made by the Jewish people in the Bible.
@Truth Seeker–I’m not your enemy. In all good intention, I advise you to–at the very least–thoroughly study how the books of the Bible (well, they were not really books in any shape or form, more like scripts or parts of scripts and letters, for the most part) were written, compiled, edited, some excluded, re-edited, and some buried, to be kept out of the ‘desired’ version printed, published, and owned by most of its readers throughout the world today.
I started with that–studying how it was compiled to be produced in its present form–and it gave me a different impression on what the expression ‘The Word of God’, or ‘The Word Inspired By God’, really meant.
Those pictures are just wrong and in bad taste.
Given that the Christian God is purported to be Omniscient, logically Christians would have to believe that Mary had no choice. If He knew her answer would be no, He’d know what He had to change, to get a yes. If He existed as they claim, that is.
When a god is hypothesised to know how everything turns out, free will doesn’t exist. At least, not for the minions.
The picture are wrong but most people like it… this is tragic
People should learn to honor their Saint or Santa, because if we do not honor them, who would honor them ??
elconejo: bad taste, arguable but possible. Of course, as Picasso (?) is reputed to have said, “Good taste is the worst enemy of creativity”.
But wrong? In what way?
elconejo,
Do you say that because of your religion? If so, would you feel that way if it were a religion not your own?
A strategically placed burkha and a faked mosque window would have gotten a different set of fanatics upset, right?
@universal law–I would never honor Santa (last I knew, he was simply an old drunk dressed up in a read-and-white suit who liked to have kids sit on his lap, the bastard). More seriously, though, honor a ‘Saint’? Who says anyone is a ‘Saint’, the Roman Catholic Church? the Anglican Church? c’mon, be serious.
That is exactly one of the things that is so wrong about religion: an organization invents a scheme giving themselves authority over things they cannot control (never mind things that may or may not be real). Religions present an illusion that appears pleasant–or at least easily acceptable, comfortable–to some, and runs with it, to exploit that idea for the own personal and political goals. The idea of ‘honoring Saints’ is just one of many pathetic controlling vices.
Now there’s an idea–an Arabian model in a semi translucent burkha–that eye liner still does it to me. LOL!
@Truth Seeker: has it ever occurred to you that, before you accuse others of being idiots and having not read the bible, it is actually a good idea to read it yourself?
If you read the whole passage, instead of just pulling one verse out of context, it is clear that Mary has no say in the matter. She is informed that she will bear a child, and will call him Jesus, before she has had the chance to say a word. At no point does the angel ask for her consent.
Tonantzin no es María.
A la Primera le debes la existencia; ya que por medio de su presencia efímera previno la aniquilación metódica de La Raza por los invasores. La segunda simplemente representa la reducción de la Primera a la mente torcida del invasor.
500+ años después, a través de los descendientes del invasor y del pela’o humillado, estos perpetúan el dominio patriarcal (tal como el objetivar lujuriosamente a quien ellos profesaban respeto) por medio de nociones puramente sin fundamento.
Así que te confundiste al relacionar la reverencia y celebración Mexica del 12 de Diciembre con las nociones indoctrinadas por los invasores. Aquellos que observaron, ya sea peregrinando u por medio del ritual de la danza, el aniversario de Tonantzin no son parte de esos 80,000+ a los que tu te refieres; por supuesto, para una persona de mercadotecnia como tu, lo único importante son el numero de individuos a quienes es posible lavarles el coco.
…y no. Yo no leo regularmente tu blog –simplemente pasaba por aquí, buscando información sobre blog software competidora a la que yo instalé en mi sitio.
Wow, it would appear I’m late to the party, and a miniature flame war broke out. I don’t see how this is any different than putting Buddha’s mother on the cover of playboy, save for the fact that his virginal birth didn’t involve a vagina, as Buddha was born from a slit in his mothers side. Similarly, I doubt most protestant would be up in arms if playboy did a tasteless column on the patron saints who were virgin martyrs. Most of the people offended by this are viewing it through the rose coloured glasses of religion.
Damn, Mary is HOT! good work God
All this talk about whether God “raped” Mary or she chose to let it happen doesn’t really matter as it never actually happened, it was just written in a rather old book!!!
well… im not religious. i don’t care actually about these things. but this time, i’m just thinking that… well, there are a lot of religious people who could find this very offensive. i just think that it wasn’t such a great idea. basically i don’t care but it…yeah, not so bright…
Or buy it just for the articles…
Indeed, St Mary of Guadalupe is very similar to Tonantzin, the Aztec goddess of flowers (blood and blossoms being the most important things in that religion, oddly). Read the story of her appearance…
Well, isn’t this more irony. Christians, by the tenets of your own faith, the model in the picture was built by God.
And you’re offended.
I suggest that you are offended because you have been taught that such beauty is sinful, when, in fact, it is your own mind which is perverted: you cannot have your way, and so you strike out.
The model is really beautiful. Admit it.. So what’s ugly about this?
Mary, the mother of Christ, must be a hag, not a healthy and desirable girl for whom you would plan a life of prosperity out of real love – the kind of love where her happiness was essential to your own. No, you must tell her and others what to do in imperial, righteous indignation. Right?
i BELIEVE PLAYBOY GOT THE IDEA FROM THE RECENT BLASPHEMOUS NOVEL BY CHARLES WEBB. “SEX WITH THE VIRGIN MARY’ PUBLISHED BY THEKICKASSPRESS.COM MOCKS THE ENTIRE CHURCH AND ESPECIALLY MARY’S VIRGINITY
Wow. Ok, this thread seems to have veered way off topic.
Radwaste – I don’t believe that nudity or sexuality is sinful. On the contrary. But what I object to is that the Virgin Maria is a sacred mother figure for Latinos, and Playboy is appropriating the image so that men can get off. If an artist painted a portrait of the Virgin Maria nude, I would not object. But putting the image on the cover of Playboy is an entirely different context.
Playgirl Tibet is also under fire after refusing to apologize for the cover of their December issue, featuring a scantily clad and sexy Buddha.
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/playgirl-buddha-sparks-outrage/
Wow…I’m almost at a loss for words, not only by the fact that Playboy took the Virgin Mary and turned her into a scantily clad object obviously designed to stir sexual fanasies, but also by the fact that so many people bought this. It’s disgusting. That’s like having sex in church or something….it’s just not right. Uck. Just unbelievably distasteful.
‘Meyer Amschel Rothschild was a Talmudist. This Satanic hatred of humanity, & Christianity in particular, is driving the New World Order.
There is a direct line between the Crucifixion of Christ, who represented the God of Love, 9-11 and the New World Order in terms of the degradation of humanity through war & depression. If this logic is correct, humanity’s fate is to be crucified like Christ or otherwise slaughtered or enslaved.’
-Henry Makow PhD, 12-1-8
Penthouse needs to battle back with a photoset of Muhammed fucking a midget pretending to be his eight-year-old child bride, Aisha.
@mms20 – I agree, it’s distasteful–but not particularly due to its content (I simply don’t like porn–a photo on a mag or other media could never compete with a real woman). I do like the fact that she is on the cover–it might get some priests to pursuing and getting laid with women instead of children…the bastards.
‘..It’s disgusting. That’s like having sex in church or something….it’s just not right. Uck.’
Yes..like that has never happened (rolls eyes with a smirk on his face).
@Bill W – I don’t know or care who Henry Makow is, but he has it all wrong. There is no ‘Satanic hatred of humanity and Christianity’–there is simply hatred exuding from rational minds against a system/religion which tries to control (and impede) the development of an entire civilization. As for the hatred against humanity, it is simply a hatred towards the ignorance of those who protect such a system/religion. It is a remarkably logical deduction from rational human beings when compared to the diversity of cultures.
@Marjanović – I’ll have to read up on Tonantzin (though I’m somewhat familiar with the Aztec). In either case, if either of them were a virgin, young (but not terribly young–I prefer 28 and older), and willing, I’d call it fair game. LOL.
(Perhaps it would be more disturbing to portray Mary as someone very unattractive. I don’t think people even consider the obvious mindset and intention of ‘writers’ of the Bible–the reappearing assertion of someone as ‘very fair’ when introducing a character of noble qualities and future influence. To me, its transparent in terms of typical two-dimensional character structure in basic fiction writing. But that is another topic.)
Descargue la revista y a mi no se me hace tan escandalosas esas fotos, si no juzguen por ustedes mismos haber que opinan, pueden descargar esa publicación entrando a sitio web http://www.playboy.com.mx/
disgusting. the hereafter will be waiting for you
its funny that the whole world was in shock over the muslim protests against the cartoons,yet if catholics do this its not even on the news hardly.this was wrong to do by offending billions of people through this(yes, muslims honor the virgin mary (hazret Maryam )and love her too) playboy should be burned in mexico these things corrupt societies and kids minds.in pakistan and indonesia porn sellers have their shops regulerly burned down.mexicans should too instead of killing each other over drug cartels,know the real enemy to the north!
(culturally corrupting)
I’m offended because the Virgin is my Mother, and I’ll never be ok with someone messing with the one I love the most…
Why make it into a biblical/political debate? I think the irony in the photo is extremely funny. That girl probably hasn’t been a virgin since she was like 15. I applaud the attempted humor.
Maybe atheism would have been a little less appealing with this version of the Virgin Mary.
Amen, Playboy, Amen.
Wow. I don’t know why PLAYBOY did such a thing like that. Are they making fun of the catholic religion? or fun of how the mexicans celebrate that day??
How can they honor the Virgin Mary with a naked woman??she is celebrating the DEVIL.
Shame on her and PLayBOy
extremely disgusting. Let’s keep some things Sacred – The Mother of God is so important to us Catholics, She was important in the plan of salvation, She was a Virgin and conserved Her purity… so many wonderful things.. and why do have to dishonor Her this way?
Na I’m letting you know right now, this is wrong! The virgin Mary watches over us and protects us. Why would you dishonor her with this.
Regardless of the religion, it is always wrong to portray anyones symbol of virtue or holiness as a sex object. It just shows utter disrespect and in no way daring journalism. These guys in Mexico should be hanged
It’s not a matter of respect or disrespect. The blasphemous things of different kinds occurs because time of Antichrist is coming. You may buy these magazines or not. You may say that we live in the modern democratic world and we can do whatever we want until the law forbids it. These words are just a trap made by devil in order to corrupt our souls.
Playboy ran out of ideas and they are godless trash anyway. So, to them this was just another stolen theme to propagate their dwindling revenues. Only trash will use trash to sell trash.