I originally thought this article was going to be a piece of orthodox crap

When actually, it's very much liberal:
Newsweek's Religion article; Who Was Mary Magdalene?

Like many recent articles that have to do with Christianity and Mary Magdalene, this article scrutinizes the roles given to her by The DaVinci Code.

I've never read The DaVinci Code, I want to though, and the idea that Jesus and Mary had a relationship intregued me. I welcomed it as a possibility. The whole issue I have with religion is that all it's central characters are all so inhuman, people I cannot even conceive to relate to. And since religion prides itself in being a moral role-model, how can anyone have a role-model that don't relate to?

Jesus having a romantic relationship make him human, makes him a more obtainable ideal.

But because I have never read the book, I don't even know what role Mary played. Was she an intellectual, spiritual equal to Jesus, did they have a feiry romance, or was she a companion, someone Jesus doted on?

And because I was never raised to beleive in much more than myself, I don't know much about how the Church portrays her. I know that a Pope called her a prostitute, and John Paul II took that back (go john paul!!) and I know she and Mary of Nazarath (jesus' mother) both witnessed his entire death, and Mary witnessed his ressurection. The timelines, the basic facts.

The idea that Mary was a very important person in Jesus's circle made me one happy little feminist.

But this article insinuates that even The DaVinci Code described her as a purely defined-by-sexuality character, just like the Church does!

Now wait a minute...

The book pushes her sexuality, and becuase she was important, she was important for her femininity, for her sex, for the fact she was the womb Jesus' baby was carried in.

Who here who reads I Blame The Patriarchy thinks that's screwy?

*waves hand*

Being important because one is the physical carrier of the spiritual doesn't make you all that important- Like Mary, Mother of God. Yea, Catholics pray to her, Yeah, she's the patron saint of something-or-other (what, you expect me to know them all?) but is she reviered because of her intellegence and spirituality, or because she was knocked up by something that wasn't man/earthly creature?

I'll give you a hint: It's not the first one.

As cliche as this sounds; labels suck, should be done away with, and the person responsible for creating them should be stabbed.

Mary was the disciple/apostle who really got Jesus, who didn't have to have anything "proved" to her (even though he banished the seven demons that possesed her) and was willing to follow him and his instructions, no matter what. The rest, from what I've gathered, doubted him in one form or another. If Jesus kissed her, it was a symbol, not of affection, love or lust, but the old, original one: A passing of knowledge, of truth.

And I dare anyone, Anyone to say that being loved for only your body is a good thing. I dare you.

Mary was the one with true Faith, and gracious, if that led to a relationship with Jesus, then YAY Jesus. If it didn't, then whatever, that doesn't change the fact that Mary beleived and taught well in Jesus' name.

In conclusion, I'm wary of The DaVinci Code, Orthodox Anything sucks as a rule, and Mary Magdalene wasn't Just Woman- she was a spiritual being who should be admired.