In a Catholic environment like this one, sooner or later I had to remember the scandalous theories of Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene, or at least fathering a child with her. While I have to admit that the claims to historical evidence for this marriage don’t really convince me, I found the spiritual-religious argument striking. And I think it does a pretty good job at explaining the shortcomings of institutionalized religion with the incompleteness of the Jesus it chooses to believe in:

The symbolic significance of Jesus is that he is God exposed to the spectrum of human experience — exposed to the first-hand knowledge of what being a man entails. But could God, incarnate as Jesus, truly claim to be a man, to encompass the spectrum of human experience, without coming to know two of the most basic, most elemental facets of the human condition? Could God claim to know the totality of human existence without confronting two such essential aspects of humanity as sexuality and paternity? We do not think so. In fact, we do not think the Incarnation truly symbolises what it is intended to symbolise unless Jesus were married and sired children. The Jesus of the Gospels, and of established Christianity, is ultimately incomplete — a God whose incarnation as man is only partial. The Jesus who emerged from our research enjoys, in our opinion, a much more valid claim to what Christianity would have him be. (Baigent, Michael; Leigh, Richard; Lincoln, Henry (1982). The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. Corgi. ISBN 0–552-12138-X.)

Incidentally, also a fairly good example of what I would see as a helpful pragmatist-constructivist line of argument on the issue. What view of the world and social practices do I commit myself if I believe this or that?

And I am fascinated by (also historically and biblically plausible) ideas of Mary as an „apostle to the apostles“ and founder of a Christian movement promoting female leadership. I wish there were any of that still in the Catholic church!