Extra Virgin Mary

Status: Prank
image I'm about five days late posting this, but better late than never. An advertisement for an "Extra Virgin Mary Statue" slipped by the editors of the conservative Catholic magazine, America. The advertisement offered "a stunning ... statue of the Virgin Mary standing atop a serpent wearing a delicate veil of latex." The "delicate veil of latex" was a blue condom. America's editors didn't examine the accompanying photo closely enough to realize this. And so the ad ran in the December 5 edition. People who contacted the seller were told the ad was meant "as an assault on Catholic faith and devotion." I don't know who the artist was who created the ad. Maybe it was Banksy.

Advertising Art Religion

Posted on Wed Dec 28, 2005


Comments

Well how can you respect an organization which is against both birth control and abortion?
Posted by Citizen Premier  on  Wed Dec 28, 2005  at  05:37 PM
I LOVE this line from the article:

"We're Jesuits," Martin said. "I don't think you could have found anyone in the editors' room who has seen a condom." The mention of a "veil of latex" failed to register, he said."

Nope, those boys ride bareback.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Wed Dec 28, 2005  at  06:57 PM
If I were religious, I'd be a darn sight more annoyed by allegedly respectful treatment of religious characters than this. Angels, for example. In the Bible, angels are powerful forces of danger to the sinful and of God's retribution, not soft fluffy non-threatening pastel-colored wimps. The latter is like handing someone a marshmallow gun and expecting them to defend themselves with it.

Mary with a condom over her? Just take it off and forget about it.
Posted by cvirtue  on  Thu Dec 29, 2005  at  03:29 AM
I clicked on both links in the write-up Alex did. After reading the stories, I have to ask "how is it possible to be liberal as a member of a 'conservative' cult?". I think THESE editors of THIS magazine brought this one on themselves...
Posted by Christopher in Joplin, Missouri  on  Thu Dec 29, 2005  at  03:45 AM
I'm a Catholic, and I've seen a condom before. Wtf?
Posted by Sakano  on  Thu Dec 29, 2005  at  09:50 AM
Sakano said:

"I'm a Catholic, and I've seen a condom before. Wtf?"

Yeah, but you're not a Jesuit and presumably have not taken a vow of celibacy, right?
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Thu Dec 29, 2005  at  05:26 PM
Link to full color photo:

Posted by andychrist  on  Fri Dec 30, 2005  at  05:57 AM
Cranky, I don't think the vow of celibacy involves a promise not to look at any condoms. However, according to the Vatican, no Catholic is supposed to USE a condom for its intended purpose (I don't think there's any prohibition on using one to water-proof a statue of Mary, though). The heirachy apparently intends to prevent overpopulation by means of epidemics rather than through contraception.

Lots of people confuse "celibacy" with "chastity." Celibacy just means a person doesn't get married. Chastity (also known as "continence") means he or she refrains from adultery or fornication. Married people can be chaste, but not celibate. Of course, Jesuits (and members of most other religious orders) are supposed to both chaste and celibate.
Posted by Big Gary  on  Sat Dec 31, 2005  at  01:00 PM
You're right, of course, Gary, about celibacy, etc. My point was that one could (sort of) understand why a person (like a Jesuit) who has taken a vow of celibacy could claim not to know what a reference to condoms meant. I can tell you, though, that when I attended Fordham University, there were a few Jesuits who, it was rumored, had some first-hand knowledge of condoms and their intended use.

Mostly, to be honest, I was just being a smartass (as you probably figured out).
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Sat Dec 31, 2005  at  02:15 PM
I meant to add that all unmarried people are (by definition) celibate, even if they are not chaste.
Posted by Big Gary in North America  on  Tue Jan 03, 2006  at  11:55 AM
I think this is fantastic.

Love seeing religious organizations get punked.

Ha!
Posted by SoxSweepAgain  on  Thu Jun 29, 2006  at  01:57 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.