Well said Joanna! You are doing the right thing!

Posted by: Alex Macias | December 1, 2009 07:22 PM

Luminous Catholic that loved animals and were vegetarian include Basil The Great, St. Martin De Porres and Cesar Chavez. Paul McCartney and Morrissey were both raised as Irish Catholics.

Posted by: Brien Comerford | December 1, 2009 07:40 PM

Awesome! As a Catholic I feel the same way. The Church should be doing more to protect animals.

Posted by: NT | December 1, 2009 11:29 PM

Being Catholic, I do understand the League's reaction to the photo where a cross - a symbol of Jesus's sacrifice - was used to cover up specific body parts on Krupa was found to be offensive. I also found questionable the use of a a rosary in the first ad. Being that she is Polish I though she may be Catholic since 99% of Poles are Catholic but I wasn't pleased with the the rosary being used as a a prop. If it was used in a context that as a devout Catholic I am opposed to animal exploitation and cruelty I am fine with it. The Rosary also is a unique symbol for Catholics because the prayers are of the Life of Jesus.
I applaud Krupa's efforts to promote reponsibility and compassion towards animals and since Catholics are the largest Christian group it is essential to reach them . But I must add that there is a need to use Catholic symbols with respect.

Please look at Catholic Concern For Animals, www.catholic-animals.org and find out more how Catholcism is leading the way towards compassion, love and respect for animals, God's creaures (yes, veganism is promoted by CCA). I am a board member for the USA counterpart.

Posted by: AAG | December 2, 2009 07:43 AM

I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church respects all life and to further this point I found a quote from an interview with the current Pope," Animals too," he stressed, "are God's creatures and even if they do not have the same direct relationship to God that man has, they are still creatures of His will, creatures we must respect as companions in creation."

I just wonder why PETA wasn't all over this quote and didn't use this quote from someone who is the spiritual leader of a billion people and who is the head of an institution that is over 2,000 years old to further their point on respecting animals. I think the Pope's statement is far more profound than a celeb.

Posted by: Kristen | December 2, 2009 09:56 AM

Jesus would want us to be kind to animals.

Posted by: Kelley | December 2, 2009 10:32 AM

The Catholic Church has a poor record of protecting it's human members from those in Church Authority. For over a century the Catholic Church condoned the kidnapping of women and girls into slave labor in the Magdalen convents (the last Magdalen Laundry closed in 1998!). Considering this along with the molestation charges involving priests and the outright cruelty of the Christian Brothers. They have no regard for human rights, so how do you expect them to have regard for the rights of animals?

Also, the nudity thing has never impressed me. I don't wear fur because it is morally wrong in an era where we have so many alternatives, not because some so-called celebrity appears naked in an ad.

Posted by: Rev. Meg Schramm | December 2, 2009 11:46 AM

This ad is awesome! Be an angel for the weak...the Catholics talk about that all the time...I am no longer a catholic, but for 10 years I was a practicing Catholic...My grandfather is a Deacon in the church, and he loved your ad! so the Catholic Legue just wants something to bitch about...

B-E-A-Utiful :D

Posted by: Kae Eileen | December 2, 2009 12:32 PM

Joanne Krupa - well said!

Posted by: John Carmody | December 2, 2009 02:19 PM

But, Kelley, Jesus was Jewish. The slaughter of animals to eat was performed regularly in his town. They did it by slitting the animals' necks (I feel so sorry for them.) But unfortunately for those poor animals that's the way it was done.

Posted by: Max | December 2, 2009 09:35 PM

Well we have done a Christian based shoot. Now for Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Shinto etc. Cant just do one religious icon now can we. Or that would make us prejudiced against the others

Posted by: Barabbas | December 2, 2009 10:06 PM

Ok, an organization that systematically abused children for centuries is complaining about a picture that's trying to save animals.
What's wrong with this picture?

Posted by: Bob L | December 3, 2009 09:41 AM

Barabbas,
More like taking a shot at the easiest target. This day in age, it is so easy to critisize Christianity. However, if you critisize Islam you are all the sudden racist.
In my opinion, religion should be left out of such controversal displays.
And PETA, thanks for posting my response from yesterday.

Posted by: Kurt K | December 3, 2009 09:41 AM

You go girfriend

Posted by: Vicky | December 3, 2009 10:20 AM

The Catholic Church has a very poor record of protesting animal cruelty. Somehow, if any treatment of animals benefits human beings, it is usually excused. Look at the treatment of animals in primarily Catholic countries (bullfighting and abuse of animals in carnivals in Spain, Latin America, Mexico, etc.). I grew up as a Catholic and in all my years in church never heard a sermon against cruelty to animals. Of course, in fall men were told that it would be a mortal sin to miss mass during hunting season--never a word about shooting and maiming animals.

Posted by: Marcia | December 3, 2009 10:33 AM

Since childhood I have not been an avid meat eater although I do at times partake. I love veggies but am having a problem dealing with the polution. I live in Europe and there is talk about the chernobal contamination of green veggies and mushrooms. The soil is corrupt. How does eating veggies in this instance become a "healthier" choice?
Please don't ignore my question as I am asking in earnest not as a provocature...Thanks

Posted by: Acciah | December 3, 2009 10:37 AM

Groups or individuals may make whatever comments they wish.They are only expressing personal opinions which carry no weight unless accompanied with check.

Posted by: rbird | December 3, 2009 10:53 AM

shouldn't they be worrying about the sex scandals of priests abusing little boys - something the vatican refuses to address and condemn, instead of focusing on peta ads

Posted by: ravi | December 3, 2009 11:06 AM

The problem is with the use of the Crucifix -- that is offensive, not her message. The use of anything remotely sacred to a Muslim or Jew in a photo of this type would never, ever have been considered.

Posted by: Virginia | December 3, 2009 12:30 PM

This is extremely offensive u took ur add way to far. At least put clothes on the girl. This is discusting! :( Shame on your company

Posted by: Bon | December 3, 2009 12:52 PM

WOULD THIS AD BE ANY LESS EFFECTIVE IF JOANNA KRUPA WORE A LUMINOUS WHITE ROBE OR GOWN??? THE FOCUS HERE SHOULD BE ON STOPPING ANIMAL ABUSE/NEGLECT - BLATANT SEMI-NUDITY ONLY DETRACTS FROM THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE ISSUE.

Posted by: Shelley | December 3, 2009 01:00 PM

The Catholic church takes offense with the use of a symbol but they don't take offense with the slaughter of millions of innocent creatures??? Give me a break! I think this ad is intelligent and visually beautiful but the message is what is important. Shame on the Catholic Church!

Posted by: Diane | December 3, 2009 01:04 PM

I am not a believer of God. But I was raised Catholic and I PERSONALLY don't see the picture as being offensive. To those Christian, Catholics, ect......If I were to believe in God, In my eyes All animals are children of God too, just because they're not "human" doesn't mean they shouldn't get the same respect and rights as a human. So, let me ask you, if this ad was to help stop child abuse, sex slaves, war, poverty, help prevent murder and many other human rights, would this ad be offensive in you eyes? I'm sure it wouldn't! I love this ad, it's a beautiful Picture and I would like to have it to hang in my home. As a vegetarian and a huge animal lover, I don't care what is done to help and save the lives of any and all animals in the world. GOOD JOB, PETA! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!

Posted by: Michelle Marquez | December 3, 2009 01:25 PM

Being a Catholic I am HONORED to see the sign of the Catholic fate extended over this poor animals. Being from San Francisco, named after the Italian Saint/Protector of animals I am proud for the work of PETA.

Posted by: dunechavo | December 3, 2009 01:57 PM

1)-it's not a crucifix, just an ornate cross. A Crucifix would have Jesus on it.
2)- God created us as vegans from the beginning. Before the Fall of Man, all the animals were herbivores.
3)- Daniel and his friends ate pulse during their captivity. And faired better than those who ate meat.

We should be concerned about the overpopulated pet market. If this ad gets you to purchase a pet from a shelter rather than a mill. Good for her.

Posted by: Brian C. | December 3, 2009 02:06 PM

I am catholic and I love the message of the add! The church should protest with the same amount of passion when priests abuse children!
Animals are our friends, and the ALLMIGHTY put them in Earth for us to admire, love and protect them!

Posted by: Anabel | December 3, 2009 03:11 PM

The meaning of the ad is fine but I don't agree with mixing sex appeal and faith in the ad.

Posted by: Matt | December 3, 2009 04:44 PM

Hi,
I'm new to PETA and to trying to go vegan. I belive in Jesus Christ as the world's Savior and God's gift for redemption, however, I am not a Catholic. I have Catholic family and friends. I don't think the ad is a matter of religion necessarily, but lack of discernment. We don't need soft porn to get people to be kind to God's creatures. Most of us, who don't look like this chick, whoever she is...don't need to see her naked whether we look as good or better or like total slobs. That's just my opinion and I bet guys who view the ad have more positive posts on her naked ad than the rest of us, but will it motivate them to be an animal activist? doubtful...

Posted by: Jolee | December 3, 2009 05:52 PM

That bill oriley or how ever you spell his name can kiss my a**. saying how americans have spoken and there gonna eat meat. he said that the animal has to die and the fish has to die. Yes thats true but they dont have to be treated the way they are treated until they do die. i bet it he had to live like one of them for just one day, he woul have a differnt view.

Posted by: walter sibert | December 3, 2009 06:41 PM

To Acciah: Unless the animals that you would be eating are being fed grains that were grown elsewhere and not in possibly contaminated soil then they wouldn't be any better for you to eat than the contaminated vegetables. Add in all the other things like hormones and antibiotics and artery clogging fat etc. that you'd be getting by eating the animals and you still come out worse than you would if you had simply eaten contaminated vegetables. What about growing your own vegetables? Even if you had no garden you could grown them in containers. Is it possible that you could get some potting soil that isn't from a contaminated source? You would have total control over what goes into or gets sprayed on your veggies and you'd be saving lives by cutting out the meat. =)

Posted by: Keely | December 3, 2009 06:49 PM

i admire joanna's courage in action and word and boooooo for the catholic church which until nowadays didn't show much courage in defending the animals neither humans - see the unholy inquisition, the south american conquista, the crusades and their nazi holocaust attitude! did they apologize for all these misdeads? until nowadays i didn't hear anything!!!

Posted by: ratking | December 3, 2009 07:24 PM

Ghandi said: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”. That he said this was no accident. It is a proven fact that serial killers for example, often practice and perfect their art upon animals. I sincerely believe that all living things, irrespective of our perceived "pecking order" are worthy of humanity, respect and empathy. This should be upheld by law and enforced by politics.

Posted by: Kath Hewitt | December 4, 2009 12:43 AM

Oh yes, so it is right, thank you Joanna!

Posted by: gerold | December 4, 2009 08:42 AM

I think this ad is beautiful, I don't understand the controversy. If anything it shows me, a nonreligious person, that the church does support compassion towards animals and not just view them as soulless things.

Great job PETA and kudos to Krupa.

Posted by: Michelle | December 4, 2009 01:43 PM

Not to crap on anyone personally, but this is SO like the Catholic church, stepping all over a woman's right to do what she wants with her body. If Ms. Krupa wants to pose in the buff, she has every right to.

Posted by: Maria | December 5, 2009 04:49 AM

I LOVE JOANNA KRUPA'S ANGEL ADS. I ESPECIALLY LIKED THE ONE OF HER EMBRACING A PUPPY MORESO THAN THE ONE OF HER HOLDING A CROSS, BUT I LOVED BOTH. GOD AND JESUS ARE SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT GOODNESS AND GOODNESS TO ME MEANS COMPASSION FOR ALL, HUMANS AND ANIMALS, WHO ARE ALL GOD'S CREATIONS. SO I DON'T KNOW WHY "REIGIOUS" PEOPLE WOULD BE OFFENDED BY THESE ADS. THEY ARE BEAUTIFUL TO ME. GOOD JOB JOANNA AND PETA!!

Posted by: Colleen Coleman | December 5, 2009 05:50 PM

Thank you ,Joanna.Thanks from Poland.

Posted by: Iwona | December 8, 2009 10:55 AM

I am inspired by her response. So beautifully and thoughtfully put. Spoken like a true animal lover.

Posted by: DLo | December 8, 2009 06:03 PM