The Blemish

Joanna Krupa Is Controversial in PETA Ad

By , 8:21 AM on Dec 02, 2009, 4 Comments

is in a new ad with wings and a halo with only a cross covering her naked body. Obviously, this pissed off the church. Let’s see what a crazy online magazine publisher has to say.

“It’s totally inappropriate,” said Deal Hudson, publisher of InsideCatholic.com, an online magazine. “It’s another instance of disrespect toward Christianity and another example of the kind of abuse that would never occur with any other major religion, because the outcry would be so immediate and so loud that the people behind it would immediately retreat.”

“The fact is that cats and dogs are a lot safer in pet stores than they are in the hands of employees,” Catholic League President Bill Donohue said in a statement. “Moreover, pet stores don’t rip off Christian iconography and engage in cheap irreligious claims.”

“ is a fraud,” Donohue continued. “It also has a long and disgraceful record of exploiting Christian and Jewish themes to hawk its ugly services. Those who support this organization sorely need a reality check. They also need a course in Ethics 101.”

Krupa responded:

“I think worrying about going topless in a photo shoot or film is really ridiculous,” she told FoxNews.com’s Pop Tarts column in an exclusive interview. “And the fact is, Pope John Paul said, since we were born naked, it is art, and it’s just showing a beautiful body that God created.”

Oh, whatever. Get over it. It’s not like she was nailed naked to the cross with “Jesus Saves. Dogs.” written under her. As far as the ad goes, it could have been a lot worse. She could have used those rosary beads as anal beads. I’m not sure what that would have to do with saving animals, but, uh, hey, what’s that behind you?

joanna-krupa-peta-01joanna-krupa-peta-02
2 Photos »
Tags: # #
Or from other sites

Editor's Web Picks

  • Henry Rinehart

    This is beyond ridiculous–the complaints, I mean. As far as Mr. Hudson is concerned, he’s obviously never heard of a famously notorious Australian painter by the name of Norman Lindsay. His painting of the “Crucified Venus” ignited a firestorm of controversy–and, just as those small-souled prigs of the early 1900′s wailed and moaned to no avail, this current crop of self-aggrandized whiners will also fall by the wayside.

    Both of Ms. Krupa’s PETA posters are lovely, thought-provoking, and just as eye-catching as they were deliberately intended to be. To all of you “religious” intolerant prudes out there–please, please, hold your breaths until the second coming of your supposed Redeemer. Just don’t be surprised when you learn that He really meant that “judge not” part of the bible that you all love to ignore. . .

    • bmulick

      Hey, Henry. Here’s a tip: as someone who doesn’t sound like a Christian (“your supposed Redeemer”), you’re not qualified to say whether or not this is offensive to Christians. It’s like a white person saying that the Indian mascot of your sports team is not offensive to Native Americans. The fact is that the ad is offensive to most Christians I know. The creators of the ad need to take in that information, and take in the fact that their ad has consequences in the real world.