Today, I thought it would be appropriate to re-post something that I wrote back in November: "Blood Donation."
May your day be filled with grace, as we accompany Christ to Calvary.
------
This blog soon to be found at setapartblog.blogspot.com
Showing posts with label Sacrifice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sacrifice. Show all posts
Friday, March 29, 2013
Friday, November 30, 2012
Blood Donation
(Before I begin my regular post, I'd just like to thank a former classmate who featured me in her own blog today! I'm so humbled and grateful. Please take some time to explore her fabulous, more established blog - I especially love the recent one about Our Lady, Untier of Knots! The post can be found here: http://trenchcoatintrospective.wordpress.com/2012/11/30/featured-blog-of-the-week-diary-of-a-passionate-phlegmatic/)
I'm not going to lie... I really, really do not like donating blood. They can never find my vein right away and the needle is so thick and scary (why does the doctor's office use a butterfly needle on me, but the Red Cross uses the gigundo one??). Plus, the last time I was there, I fainted. I woke up to a fan blowing on my face and a nurse saying, "Katherine, Katherine?" This confused an already confusing situation - if you've ever fainted, you understand the disorientation that takes place when you wake up - because no one ever calls me by my full name.
It could have been worse. Apparently if you faint while giving blood, the needle can come out and spurt blood everywhere, and/or you can pee your pants... at least neither of those happened!
But every so often, I feel obligated to do this simple thing to help out humanity. So yesterday, I dutifully kept my appointment (sometimes I "forget").
It was a long, long wait. But as I finally lay in the chair/stretcher type thing, I looked across at my arm. And all I could see in my mind was this:
Suddenly, the needle in my vein seemed tiny, compared to the thick nail in his wrist.
The whole process I went through was sterilized, safe and ordinary; when he fell carrying the cross, dirt and rocks got in his cuts.
When I looked down at my arm, I saw that yellowish color from the iodine; when he looked down his arm, he saw the cuts in his flesh from the scourging.
I didn't feel anything except a little pain when they put the needle in and pulled it out at the end; he agonized on the cross for three hours.
I sipped Sprite with my free hand to keep myself from feeling dizzy. He said, "I thirst," and they gave him vinegar.
I came out with a bandage wrapped around my arm and went on with my day; he was wrapped in cloth and placed in a tomb.
My blood potentially saved three lives. His saved the world.
I'm not going to lie... I really, really do not like donating blood. They can never find my vein right away and the needle is so thick and scary (why does the doctor's office use a butterfly needle on me, but the Red Cross uses the gigundo one??). Plus, the last time I was there, I fainted. I woke up to a fan blowing on my face and a nurse saying, "Katherine, Katherine?" This confused an already confusing situation - if you've ever fainted, you understand the disorientation that takes place when you wake up - because no one ever calls me by my full name.
It could have been worse. Apparently if you faint while giving blood, the needle can come out and spurt blood everywhere, and/or you can pee your pants... at least neither of those happened!
But every so often, I feel obligated to do this simple thing to help out humanity. So yesterday, I dutifully kept my appointment (sometimes I "forget").
It was a long, long wait. But as I finally lay in the chair/stretcher type thing, I looked across at my arm. And all I could see in my mind was this:
Suddenly, the needle in my vein seemed tiny, compared to the thick nail in his wrist.
The whole process I went through was sterilized, safe and ordinary; when he fell carrying the cross, dirt and rocks got in his cuts.
When I looked down at my arm, I saw that yellowish color from the iodine; when he looked down his arm, he saw the cuts in his flesh from the scourging.
I didn't feel anything except a little pain when they put the needle in and pulled it out at the end; he agonized on the cross for three hours.
I sipped Sprite with my free hand to keep myself from feeling dizzy. He said, "I thirst," and they gave him vinegar.
I came out with a bandage wrapped around my arm and went on with my day; he was wrapped in cloth and placed in a tomb.
My blood potentially saved three lives. His saved the world.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
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:
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
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!
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."
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)