PETA is known for (usually tastefully) using celebrities who care for their cause to pose in their risqué ads. The point is to show that these stars would rather “go naked” than wear fur. In their latest ad, “Be an Angel for Animals. Always Adopt. Never Buy,” PETA called on Joanna Krupa, model/actress/recent contestant on ABC’s “Dancing With the Stars” show, to pose. Krupa poses wearing nothing but angel wings and a halo, while holding a crucifix that covers her private parts. In addition, she is floating over a bunch of different dogs in what looks like the inside of a church or cathedral.

 

The ad has infuriated some Catholics. Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League, addressed PETA’s newest campaign on December 1st:

 

 

Donohue also claims in his issued statement that PETA killed many of the animals in its care, and therefore, the animals are “a lot safer in pet stores” than they are with these alleged “animal killers.” According to Donohue, pet stores “don’t rip off Christian [or Jewish] iconography.”

 

I have always been a fan of PETA and their belief that all animals should be given proper treatment, love, and care. However, their latest campaign has affected me differently. What I am wondering is, WHY did PETA have to use the crucifix or rosary? I must admit that I was offended by their newest ads. I mean, I’m not an extremely devout, practicing Catholic myself, so I was not going to issue a pissed off statement such as Donohue’s. It did bother me, however, that an organization which is not a part of the Catholic church would feel that it was necessary or appropriate for them to use the Catholic church’s sacred and holy symbols as mere props in their ads. It was almost as if they used both icons for the sole purpose of creating controversy and generating more attention, perhaps in boosting their image or possibly Krupa’s not-so-famous career. Sure, the extra media coverage (no pun intended) does bring more attention to the importance of treating and caring for animals in an ethical manner, but I strongly believe they could have gotten their points across without using the crucifix or rosary.

 

Take a look at the picture of Krupa with the rosary and the photo of her with the crucifix. Would things really be that different if those two items were never there in the first place? Picture a sky or a bunch of clouds versus the church/cathedral background. Would it really make that much of a difference? I am pretty sure Krupa’s nudity and pretty face, with the addition of carefully-placed animals would have sufficed in getting the same messages across to its viewers: Krupa would rather “go naked” than “wear fur” and she implores viewers to “be an angel” by adopting.

 

Using the holy symbols as props degrades and undermines their importance and significance in the Catholic church and religion. Moreover, according to The Center for Consumer Freedom, PETA has offended people of Jewish religion, as well, by urging their own Jewish members to abstain from eating lamb during Passover, and in their ad, “Holocaust on your plate,” Holocaust victims are likened to farm animals. Would they do this to people of Islamic faith by degrading their Koran or any other Muslim symbols? They probably don’t have the guts to, so I think not.

 

Is it just me? Am I overreacting? I honestly do not think so, but whatever their intentions were, PETA definitely made a statement and created more controversy and “hoopla” on top of that.

 

On a side note, might I add that most angel wings, like those Ms. Krupa is wearing in these ads, are usually made from real bird feathers. Is PETA saying that although it is NOT okay to wear fur, it IS okay to wear feathers? I almost cannot bear the irony or hypocrisy!