Looking Back at Lent: Why Do Penance?

Wednesday, April 27, AD 2011

Thinking back over Lent, one of the things that hits me, as it has before, is that I am much better at not doing things for Lent than doing things. Even moderately big changes in my daily routine such as “fasting” by having only one meal a day on Wednesdays and Fridays, or abstaining from alcohol entirely, are fairly doable. However, my resolutions to start each day be reading Morning Prayer, or reading the Pope’s second volume of Jesus of Nazareth, or blogging my way through all of Augustine’s Confessions — not so much.

That’s the point at which I find myself wondering: Is putting so much focus into not doing something a mistake? There is, after all, nothing wrong with eating, or with having my nightly beer or glass of wine. Why should God have any interest in my not doing these perfectly acceptable things? It’s not as if God gets satisfaction out of thinking, “Ah, it’s Lent. I do so look forward to all those little human creatures going in for a little bit of voluntary discomfort. I thrive on discomfort.”

So why give up a few pleasures for Lent — especially while at the same time failing in doing some positive things which would arguably be better things to do?

Well, obviously, the reason for penance is not that God wants us to be miserable.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

7 Responses to Looking Back at Lent: Why Do Penance?

  • It’s also about remembrance (at least it is for me, anyways). It reminds me when I am not drinking that glass of beer of what the season is supposed to be about and what I should be thinking of rather than my own pleasures. In that context, it puts Jesus and His sacrifice front and center in my thoughts, which can lead to other reflections.

    Sadly, many young people see it more as a hassle or guilt trip than anything else. But then, they ARE young people (sigh)…

  • I’ve been taught that you should give up something you enjoy as a suffering in remembrance of what Jesus went through (I was later taught that I should replace it with “something positive”). My problem has always been that after the first week, I don’t miss what I gave up anymore and I’m not suffering anything :/

  • Doing something positive is acceptable, but I tend to think it should be something positive not as in a personal goal with a vague general good, but as a life changing positive or doing something profound for others. Like something that takes us out of our comfort zone and forces us to act on things we know we should do for others but often rationalize it away. I also view the giving up of something not so much as to be a rememberance of Our Lord’s passion (though it is certainly that too!), but as a true mortification. Something that causes us discomfort, a serious denial of the flesh. I’ve had a few good Lents where I was really ambitious in both the mortification and positive departments, and I’ve had many more Lents where I’ve been a sissy and just gave up soda (like this year). As a big soda drinker it’s a definite change of behavior and an inconvenience, however I don’t delude myself into thinking it’s true mortification, after all I end up just drinking more iced tea.

  • The past few years I’ve been trying to do one of each – give up something and do something. I find that I get so much less out of Lent when I give up (or do) something that I’ve done before. I need that “oh, darn it, that’s right” moment as I reach for potato chips (or whatever), followed by the self-pity at my huge sacrifice, followed by the humiliating contrast between not eating potato chips for 40 days versus being crucified for someone else’s sins. That keeps me from falling into the problem that Kylekanos describes.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • The self-discipline imposed at Lent serves another purpose also; knowing that you can say ‘no’ to things which are not sinful teaches us we have the strength to say ‘no’ when we are tempted by things that are and gives us the strength to resist.