All I Want for Christmas...

So yesterday, I was listening to this, and yeah... I probably played and replayed it about 50 times:

(I don't even like this song, usually, but I love this group! They're Christian, but they also do secular covers... I recommend!).

However, on probably the 17th time through or so, I started thinking about the words I was listening to. "All" I want for Christmas is you. I don't need "a lot" for Christmas. I won't ask for "much" this Christmas.

Huge caveat here: I'm sure that this was not how the song was meant to be taken, so straw man, maybe? But disregarding the person is such a prevalent offense that I think this is relevant anyway.

We are each a gift, yes! Take a second to celebrate that... eat some ice cream, hug your mom, do a dance in your living room. Yay! You are a gift, and your best friend is a gift, and that person you really don't like is also a gift (sorry, can't get off the hook with that one). As it says in Gaudium et Spes, "Man finds himself only by making himself a sincere gift to others." Let's put it this way: are you happier when living only for yourself, following every whim and desire - or are you happier when you live for others? When you serve? Anyone who has ever volunteered, gone on a mission trip or raised a child would say the latter. 

Okay, so we are meant to give ourselves. But what kind of gift? 

"There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal." -C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory

If a man or woman were to ask for you for Christmas, that would be the most amazing, incredible, intense gift that he or she could possibly receive (besides God himself, of course). Mind-blowing, really. 

Unless you're getting down on one knee with a ring (or unless this has already taken place, plus a couple "I do's"), I would be pretty hesitant about asking for a PERSON for Christmas. This isn't a gift to be given or received casually - people aren't toys that get boring, or gadgets that go out of date when the newest technology comes out. You can't throw them away or replace them. 

Don't ask for someone for Christmas, or give yourself away, unless you really mean it. And then, give radically, sacrificially... don't hold back. 

Beauty and the "Being Incomprehensible to Himself"

My aunt and uncle recently took my family to see a theatrical production of "Beauty and the Beast" in Cleveland. I love theater, especially musical theater; I also love my family, so I had a ball! My family used to call me "Belle" all the time, due to my tendency to walk around the house with a book. I never did run into anything, like my parents thought I would...

Like the typical movie-turned-musical, or vice-versa, the musical theater version of "Beauty and the Beast" has songs that are not in the movie. For instance, this little gem popped up on my iPod today:

As I munched on my breakfast, I pondered this song, and the musical as a whole. When I saw it a few weeks ago, I flippantly asked my sister, "Why does the Beast have to be loved in return? Not fair, that's not his fault if she doesn't!" But today, it dawned on me: I'm looking at this as a cold, scientific equation. Beast loves Belle + Belle loves Beast = happy day for Beast and servants! (This is odd, because I am not the scientific/mathematical type... but anyway.)

But it's not about an equation - it's about the transformational power of love. Bam.

Although I'm sure I knew this on some level, it was kind of a revelation to me. The Beast truly is beastly, inside and out, because he does not know how to love and be loved. As he learns to love Belle, and as she loves him back, something amazing happens in his heart, which is then reflected in his exterior appearance as the spell is finally broken (as I contemplate it now, it's kind of sacramental. But I won't get into that now... anyway...).

Shocker: Blessed John Paul II totally breaks this down. Something like this:

"Man cannot live without love. He remains a being that is incomprehensible for himself, his life is senseless, if love is not revealed to him, if he does not encounter love, if he does not experience it and make it his own, if he does not participate intimately in it." (Redemptor Hominis 10)

The Beast is so beastly because he is lacking the main thing that humanizes us, the image of God Himself: love. And this appears to be a two-way street. Like JPII says, there's something about having love "revealed" to us, about the "encounter," that we need if we are to be truly human. Otherwise, he is "a being that is incomprehensible for himself" - a beast. But notice that JPII describes love in reciprocal terms. You can't reveal something to yourself, or encounter your own love - you need a person who loves you.

Of course the Beast cannot force Belle to love him. But how can he "participate intimately" in love, unless there is someone to participate with?

And if there isn't, he will remain forever [cue dramatic voice]... a Beast. A being whose "life is senseless"... until Belle comes along and gives him the opportunity for a total transformation of heart! Ahhhhhhhhhh, I'm getting goosebumps!

Caveats on this whole thing (I'm a catechist, so I have to throw these out there): of course as Catholics, we don't believe that we need to find human romance in order to fill the void in our hearts - we can only be fully satisfied by God. Yet, we are made for communion with each other, and self-sacrificial love. But we also believe in priestly and religious vocations, which incorporate this need in a different way! Also, neither I or JPII are nixing "love your enemies" - we love people who don't love us back, but we do have a real human need to be loved back by someone.

At any rate, I'm really enjoying reflecting on this - it's all still a little foggy in my head, though, so I'd love to hear your ideas, too! Why does Belle have to love the Beast in return... do you have a deeper insight (or any other thoughts about "Beauty and the Beast," or fairy tales, or the transformational power of love)? Am I looking too deeply into this? Somehow, I don't think G.K. Chesterton would think so, according to this essay he wrote (I love it, particularly about the "arbitrary" fairy tale rules... and I think he may have some insights for my questions, what do you think?): http://www.surlalunefairytales.com/introduction/gkchesterton.html

"No pain could be deeper
No life could be cheaper
No point anymore, if I can't love her
No spirit could win me
No hope left within me
Hope I could have loved her and that she'd set me free
But it's not to be
If I can't love her
Let the world be done with me."

And oh, side note: in the musical version, the servants-turned-household-items discuss why it was indeed fair for them to be changed from into non-humans as well. They decide that they were partially responsible for allowing their Master to be such a selfish brat, essentially enabling him. I was intrigued - I had never thought about that before!