America apologizes for offensive "Extra Virgin" ad

[Confiteor]

Whew…I’m not a fan of America mag, but I figured someone put something over on them this time…

America to publish apology on offensive add for Virgin Mary statue covered with a condom

“The add [sic] which was published in its December 5th edition, was for a “Extra Virgin Mary” statue. It appeared on page 36 of the December 5 edition which displayed a virgin covered with “delicate veil of latex”, in English: a condom.”

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?

 

[bones_IV]

Confiteor:

Whew…I’m not a fan of America mag, but I figured someone put something over on them this time…

America to publish apology on offensive add for Virgin Mary statue covered with a condom

“The add [sic] which was published in its December 5th edition, was for a “Extra Virgin Mary” statue. It appeared on page 36 of the December 5 edition which displayed a virgin covered with “delicate veil of latex”, in English: a condom.”

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?

Looks like the colors of the liberals are exposed. They sense the tide is turning against them. And you know what, they are still convinced they can get the Church to bow down to the world.

 

[oat_soda]

it’s hard to stay optomistic about the church when a major jesuit magazine publically committing a sacraligous act against the Blessed Virgin Mary herself. the usccb outright praised a homosexual movie until the laity responded. a homosexual friendly pro gay union bishop was recently appointed over san francisco.

how sad that it takes the laity to censor bishops and the institutional church. i guess vatican ii was effectivley succesful in shifting responsiblity from the top to the bottom. for the institutional church in the west is very sick.

 

[CatQuilt]

Not buying the apology!

Let’s return to the real world.

1. There is probably no group, in the entire universal Church, that is less likely to let that particular form of sacrilege slip by unnoticed than the Jesuits of America magazine in Manhattan. Suppose you taught high school and that same ad had appeared in the student newspaper. Would you buy the explanation that the students “didn’t catch the mistake” in the proofing process? Rubbish. Yet we’re talking here about adults who are players in the culture wars, players who’ve taken notoriously edgy positions on sexual issues. The word “mistake” does not apply.

http://xs60.xs.to/pics/05511/proof.jpg 2) The editor says the “problem” was not evident in the black and white proofs, and that’s how the ad got into print. You can make your own call regarding the greyscaled jpeg (left), but even if – which I find preposterous – no one at America ever realized he was looking at a condom, even if no photo accompanied the ad, the text itself convicts them of collusion. The ad describes a sculpture of a Madonna named “Extra Virgin” – a camp but unequivocal bit of mockery – and the mention of “the delicate veil of latex” is meant to provoke the same sort of tittering. Again, if we came upon the same text in a high school newspaper we’d have no trouble finding the hermeneutical key.

1. If we’re meant to be looking at a slip, where are the other ads in America for kitschy religious art, with which “Extra Virgin” was so easily confused? There are none. Even a condomless kitsch Madonna would be rare enough to make the sub-editors spew their latte across the copy desk in shock. This isn’t the Sacred Heart Messenger, folks.

1. Let’s pretend, for the sake of argument, that no one on America’s staff colluded in the ad. Suppose further that, instead of the Blessed Virgin, it was a hallowed liberal icon whose figurine had been treated in a comparably ignoble manner. If someone were hawking a nine-inch Martin Luther King sheathed in a condom, or a nine-inch Cardinal Bernardin coated with K-Y jelly, or a nine-inch Eleanor Roosevelt outfitted with a dental dam, are we meant to believe they too would have passed all the way through America’s process of ad acceptance, lay-out, and proof-reading, with no one raising an eyebrow? If you can believe that, boys and girls, you can believe anything.

Of course not. And in the case of “Extra Virgin,” if the ad had simply been passed by drowsy proofers, it would mean that the folks at America accord the Mother of God much less pious attention than Dr. King, Cardinal Bernardin, etc. That supposition in itself is not implausible, but the “oops we let it slip” excuse is. Some person or persons in-house brought off the stunt, the predictable flap occurred, and we’re getting the predictable damage control, the minimum necessary force required to keep America in the boundary-bending business.

link

 

[Louis_IX]

there were 5 copies of this issue in our literature rack, 20 feet from the sanctuary - I removed them all, made an act of reparation and will share it with our pastor.

 

[Confiteor]

1. First, I don’t care for America and I think parishes should consider dumping it because it does not belong in parish libraries or news racks until its new editor has proven himself more faithful to authentic Church teaching than the last. However, I actually do think that they may have been duped in this case. Perhaps more incompetence than malice. Mistreating the mother of God just doesn’t fit with the character of their usual misbehavior which tends toward pushing dissenting opinions, etc. I don’t understand what would be their motivation for this sort of thing.
2. Second, I just noticed that some of the links posted have included the offensive statue… Some of the other sites seem to be arguing that it was easy to overlook that the statue was covered with a condom. Since we all seem to agree it is “offensive” in the first place it might be best not to proliferate the image.
3. Pray for the artist because he obviously needs some sort of conversion.