Shriven, Shroven

Ah, Shrove Tuesday: the last day of gluttonous freedom before the start of Lent!

As I was on my way out of the College after evening prayer, a friend asked me if I’ve shriven of my sins yet. I suppose I knew that there was a point to Shrove Tuesday besides from eating soon-to-be-forbidden foods and general licentiousness, but I’ve never actually stopped to think what that point might be. Hm.

I guess it makes sense to repent of one’s sins before embarking on a season of penitence: why put off until tomorrow what you can do today, right? Plus, having prepared yourself makes it easier to start out Lent with confession, which of course is ideal. Unfortunately, I still don’t have a regular confessor, so that’s not a possibility for me at the moment. I confess, I do miss the anonymous boxes at St. Pat’s.

*sigh*

I don’t really know what it means to be shriven of one’s sins. I guess it means, like, acknowledging and regretting them, and having them erased. (the fact that I don’t know the definition of this word speaks volumes about my education in English Literature)

The concept of being shriven – shriving? – makes me think of what it means to be forgiven, generally.

What exactly is the sacrament of reconciliation? Obviously, it’s meant to impart grace, usually understood as strength to not commit the same sin again. But lots of sacramentals, like holy water, also impart grace…surely, what makes reconciliation a sacrament isn’t solely that it does so inerrantly. Right?

Reconciliation is supposed to have a real effect on the soul, repairing a rift between the soul and God caused by sin. Hence, Roman Catholic theology maintains that, strictly speaking, only mortal sins require confession; venial sins only incur a temporal penalty (i.e. Purgatory).

The problem of reconciliation, as I see it, is twofold. First, the division between mortal and venial sin seems a bit arbitrary, because it translates the idea of being a sinner from a categorical truth to a matter of degree. Secondly, it’s difficult to precisely locate the mechanism of the sacrament. Is it in the contrite attitude? The admission of guilt? Or the pronouncement of absolution? It’s the only sacrament that requires a specific disposition of the will in order to be effective. In a pinch, the special grace of the sacrament can be obtained by nothing more than a true act of contrition. So why do we need a priest, if it’s a matter between the soul and God alone? Why do we call it a sacrament?

I only have two answers for this, which I think can both be true (or, alternately, both wrong).

One is that it’s possible the soul’s true contrition is produced by the sacrament. Being separated from God, one needs help to return. Maybe you want to be truly, deeply sorry, and because of this genuine want, God imparts true contrition in the sacrament, bringing the soul back to Him in a way it never could achieve on its own.

Another is that, as the BAS tells me, reconciliation is actually corporate, because it affects not just the person but the Church. I guess it’s a bit like having a crazy person in the family: while there’s no doubt that the person is the crazy one, their craziness affects the whole family. Fixing the crazy person changes the whole family. Hence, reconciliation is literally a sacrament of the Church, acting through and on the individual to strengthen and repair the whole, changing the Church and not just one person or component in it.

As I write this, I realize that I may, in fact, be a heretic; I’d be eternally grateful if people could point that out.

I think I'll go back to my traditional Shrove Tuesday observances, rather than be confused by this question of reconciliation...with a special focus on WAFFLES!!!!!