Pope John Paul II and Joanna Krupa’s nonsense….

I’ve seen a lots of people try to justify inappropriate behavior – but this is one of the worst I have ever seen. Joanna Krupa – a Polish “supermodel” – is trying to use Pope John Paul II to justify her involvement in pornography!  This is very dangerous because misrepresenting the Church’s teaching on morals can lead many people astray.  Fox News uses the following headline:

“Krupa’s Pics Pope-Approved?

Polish swimsuit star Joanna Krupa says Polish pope approved toplessness”

Here is an excerpt from the Fox News article:

“It should come as no surprise that Joanna Krupa is comfortable removing her clothes.

The Polish-born beauty is one of the most Googled gals on the internet, has been named the “Sexiest Swimsuit Model in the World” by Playboy, and graced the cover of almost every men’s magazine on the planet, from Maxim to Esquire to GQ.

But did you know the first Polish pope was involved in her frequent disrobing?  (Ed. note – That statement is outrageous.  This is is meant to be – wink wink –  salacious.  It is irresponsible journalism.)

“I think worrying about going topless in a photo shoot or film is really ridiculous,” Krupa told FOXNews.com 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.”  (The FACT is that Pope John Paul II has never said that.  Shouldn’t a responsible journalist check into what the Pope has actually said?  Follow the link at the bottom of this post to Steve Kellmeyer’s article, “The Naked Truth” to see what the Pope actually teaches in the Theology of the Body.)

“I was born in Europe, and Europeans have a more casual, natural way of dealing with nudity,” Krupa adds. “Interestingly enough, these days, you see nudity and toplessness in almost every critically acclaimed movie, and whenever I pick up a French Vogue, I see bare breasts, and French Vogue still sets the standards.”

And even though Krupa is in an industry where so many sleep their way to-the-top, she says she has never once sacrificed her moral integrity to land a job.  (Ms. Krupa has a lack of self-awareness.)

“I can tell you that I am very proud that everything I have achieved to date has happened due to the hard work of my team and myself,” she said. “I was never tempted to give in because I have always been in committed relationships (?), and take the word ‘committed’ very seriously.” (Which is why she uses the plural term “relationships”?)

What has Pope John Paul II REALLY said regarding this kind of exploitation of women?

Here’s an excerpt from #14 of his Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem (On the Dignity and Vocation of Women) available online here.

“After original sin, contrary forces are at work in man and woman as a result of the threefold concupiscence, the “stimulus of sin”. They act from deep within the human being. Thus Jesus will say in the Sermon on the Mount:“Every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mt 5:28). These words, addressed directly to man, show the fundamental truth of his responsibility vis-a-vis woman: her dignity, her motherhood, her vocation. But indirectly these words concern the woman. Christ did everything possible to ensure that – in the context of the customs and social relationships of that time – women would find in his teaching and actions their own subjectivity and dignity. On the basis of the eternal “unity of the two”, this dignity directly depends on woman herself, as a subject responsible for herself, and at the same time it is “given as a task” to man. Christ logically appeals to man’s responsibility. In the present meditation on women’s dignity and vocation, it is necessary that we refer to the context which we find in the Gospel. The dignity and the vocation of women – as well as those of men – find their eternal source in the heart of God. And in the temporal conditions of human existence, they are closely connected with the “unity of the two”. Consequently each man must look within himself to see whether she who was entrusted to him as a sister in humanity, as a spouse, has not become in his heart an object of adultery; to see whether she who, in different ways, is the cosubject of his existence in the world, has not become for him an “object”: an object of pleasure, of exploitation.”

Jesus said – any man who looks lustfully at a woman has committed adultery with her in his heart.  This is treating a woman as an object of pleasure and exploitation. A woman is a subject responsible for herself – if she places herself in the position of an object of adultery, she is responsible for that.

Anyone who has any familiarity with the Theology of the Body whatsoever would know, without question, that Pope John Paul II would never, ever advocate pornography!   For an excellent analysis of this and a much fuller explanation of the teachings of Pope John Paul II on nudity, see the following by Steve Kellmeyer:
The Naked Truth.

UPDATE – It gets worse…. read on.

A new PETA advertisement featuring model Joanna Krupa wearing nothing but a crucifix and a seductive smile is “totally inappropriate” and exploitative of Christian symbols, critics say.

Krupa, a Playboy cover girl and a “Dancing With the Stars” regular, is seen topless and bottomless in the latest spot by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which urges people to adopt pets from rescue shelters instead of buying them from puppy mills.

The Polish-born beauty appears in the ad with angel wings behind her and a digital halo over her head. Her private parts are covered — barely — by a large, well-placed metallic crucifix.

“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.”

Krupa’s reaction?

“As a practicing Catholic, I am shocked that the Catholic League is speaking out against my PETA ads. I’m doing what the Catholic Church should be doing, working to stop senseless suffering of animals, the most defenseless of God’s creation.”

OK – so how does posing with nothing but a Crucifix to cover your private parts stop the suffering of animals? Couldn’t she just work at a shelter or something?

Advertisements

2 Comments

  1. “A woman is a subject responsible for herself – if she places herself in the position of an object of adultery, she is responsible for that.”

    Also, If a woman takes a shortcut through an alley while wearing a minskirt, it’s her fault if she gets raped. She was asking for it.

  2. Dear Intelligent Design –
    The analogy you use is quite poor – mostly because I think you make an incorrect assumption by linking rape with adultery.
    But I’ll get to that in a minute. First, let’s look at the premise.
    A person is responsible – meaning, morally culpable – if he or she willingly chooses to do something that he or she knows will be an occasion of sin for another.
    For example – I am morally culpable if I keep filling up the glass of someone who is becoming drunk.
    That is why bartenders are now required by law to refuse drinks to those who they deem are intoxicated/approaching intoxication.
    If they do not, they become an accomplice.
    Does it mean the bartender is a drunk? No.
    Does it mean that the bartender wants the person at the bar to become drunk? No.
    Is the bartender morally culpable for the drunkenness of the person at the bar?
    Not completely, but if he has full knowledge that the person is becoming drunk and fully intends to keep serving him anyway, he is an accomplice.
    That is simple.
    Here is where your analogy fails:
    If a man is waiting in an alley to rape someone, it really doesn’t matter who the woman is or what she is wearing.
    Random rape is an act of violence, not lust.
    Elderly women, mentally retarded women, little girls – all have been raped – not because of lust, but because of the fact that the rapist is committing a violent act of hatred against another human being in order to exert his own power, and she just happened to be there.
    Your comment would have been much more pertinent if you had referred to date rape.
    In that case, it tends to be a question of lust rather than violence.
    Why has there been an explosion of date rape in our era?
    Precisely because of the lie that has been spread throughout society that a woman can do whatever she want to a man and she maintains no culpability for the outcome.
    If a woman dresses provocatively, gets tipsy, starts dirty dancing with a guy and then accompanies him to his bedroom “just to make out” – does she bear absolutely NO responsibility if he gets to a point where he doesn’t “stop in time”?
    In answering that question, we need to dump ideology and look at common sense.
    She has already committed a grave sin of use against the man whom she has engaged in all the forgoing activity with.
    To compare it with the bartender – if she has full knowledge that the man is becoming aroused and fully intends to keep arousing him anyway – she is an accomplice. Maybe it’s not PC to say that – but it is true.
    That’s the point of chastity – Intelligent Design. AND modesty. Don’t start what you aren’t willing to finish.


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s