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.
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.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:50 am
Publishers of Erotic Titillating Advertisements
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:15 am
Pussy Excites Tumescent Atheist
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:28 am
Phwoar!
That is all, I’m just off to erm… adopt some pets.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:38 am
As long as that doesn’t involve any of that “sex that pertains to dogs and cats”, @OpenMind! (This woman isn’t the Catholic equivalent of Ms Carrie Prejean, I suppose?)
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:47 am
http://www.animalscam.com/
http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsC7.htm
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
more about PETA in those websites… I hate PETA as much as I hate religion hahaha
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:54 am
BTW Isn’t it “improper use of Christian symbols” to encourage people to venerate statues, crucifixes and oddments of human hair, bones, clothing etc, collected from goodness knows where, mainly for the purpose of raising funds? I read yesterday (on msn news, I believe) that Our Blessed Saviour has shown His face on someone’s iron now! Whatever next?
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:09 pm
I am less up in arms about the religious aspect than I am about the fact that PETA seems unable to take a step anywhere and do anything without exploiting women in some way.
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:42 pm
PETA is BULLSHIT
http://www.bigvidpro.com/?v=MWZx_kmsqm9pgATyg7eTMg
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
PETA once again proves that the best thing they’ve ever done is get celebrities(?) to pose nude.
If only they’d focus on that instead of being totally insane.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:22 pm
I’m gonna go… walk the dog now.
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:33 pm
@barriejohn,
nope, I think this chick’s hotter.
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:33 pm
I always thought it stood for Please Eat The Animals….whoops!!!
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Is this one the real thing, @OpenMind, or is SHE Pick-and-Mix as well?
I think most of us visiting this site have an aversion to fascism in all its forms.
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:23 pm
@barrie,
do you have to bring everything down to an analytical level? Can’t I just enjoy the mental notion of a bit of debauchery with an attractive woman made up as a nudie angel without worrying about her politics.
A hot fascist is still hot.
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:33 pm
That’s what Max Mosley said, I believe, @Open Mind (allegedly)!
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:39 pm
I support PETA
People Eating Tasty Animals
Seriously though when it comes to spouting bullshit PETA are just as bad as the catholic church and they also support those who use violence to further their cause and resort to scare tactics to try and convert people.
Couldn’t we get this Catholic league and PETA to fight each other to the death or something??
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Yes, ZombieHunter, which is worse – PETA or the Catholic Church? “There’s only one way to find out!”
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:06 pm
!!!!!!FIIIIIIGHT!!!!!! :p
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Barriejohn and ZombieHunter, very funny – you guys watch too much TV.
The catholic church and PETA have a lot in common: lying, intimidation, threats, violence……make good bedfellows don’t they. Like many charities they hoodwink people to fund a nice lifstyle for themselves.
BTW on the subject of animal “charties” the RSPCA are not so clean, they had a big hand in the hunting ban.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Ooooh, the Catholic League is pissed off about something. What’s new?
December 4th, 2009 at 10:19 am
PETA’s incessant objectification of women is quite distasteful. I’m not going to rant about the reinforcement of mainstream
sexismsexuality through idealised depictions of prevailing conceptions of beauty. I just wanted to point out that many anti-speciesist campaigners do not support PETA’s methods.December 5th, 2009 at 1:29 am
OMG, those doggies in the ad are all naked too! Gasp!
December 5th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Am I to understand that a commentator on this site opposes the law banning sadistic unspeakables from pursuing uneatables in order to get their rocks off savouring a fox’s screams of agony as it is torn apart by a pack of dogs?
I am no fan of the PETA fanatics, who cannot get it through their thick heads that prohibiting the import of Canadian sealskin will NOT prevent the annual cull, which is necessary in order to prevent the seals from overpopulating, wiping out the salmon population that supports thousands of jobs, and then themselves becoming extinct because there will be no salmon to feed them.
December 5th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Some people seem to be missing a major point here – the Roman Catholic Church – the biggest, oldest and best-connected paedophile ring in history – is claiming the moral high ground on an issue.
December 6th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
@valdemar – The Catholic League isn’t the Church. It’s just a bunch of whiny, egotistical hypocritical apologists for the Church.