Help for Scruples: Reflex Principles

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cascadian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cascadian

Guest
Hi, I’m an 18 year old who has struggling with scrupulosity. It’s been a terrible experience and still continues to be. A doubtful conscience is a tough thing to deal with.
Anyways, while reading Exposition of Christian Doctrine Vol. 2: Moral by A Seminary Professor (that’s the name given for the author) I came across these rules called “reflex principles” which are on how to deal with a doubtful conscience. I thought I’d share them here because they may be of some help to other scruples and even non-scruples. The book is old but it’s very well written, and contains the proper imprimatur and nihil obstat.

1st.* A doubtful law is not binding.* It is in virtue of this principle that we are permitted, when in doubt, to follow an opinion that is solidly probable.
This is something that is widely taught to scruples, there is freedom in doubt. I’m not so sure as to how that applies to the explanation though.
2d*. In case of doubt, we must declare in favor of that which is in possession.* Thus the person who is in doubt as to whether he has taken a drink before or after midnight, may go to Communion, for his liberty is in possession.
For a little context, it used to be that the fast before Communion lasted longer. The rule itself means that we must deal with what we know. Scruples often worry about the what ifs, however often enough they are unfounded. If a person doesn’t remember that they ate something during the time of the fast, then they shouldn’t worry about it.
3d. A fact is not to be presumed; it must be proved. Thus a person is not bound to believe that he has incurred the penalty that attaches to a fault, if he is in doubt as to whether he has committed that fault.
This is related to the last one. Again, scruples often worry about the what ifs, however facts must be proven. Our assertions must be based on proven knowledge. If a person knew that they had to do a penalty then they wouldn’t be in doubt about it. Their worry is unfounded.
4th.* The presumption is in favor of the validity of an action till the contrary has been proved*. It is in accordance with this principle that, in case of doubt, a confession should be presumed to have been valid.
This is basically number 2 applied to the validity of actions. If you’re in doubt on whether something is valid or not, then you don’t know that it isn’t and you just have to go with the info that you have.
5th. In case of doubt, the presumption is in favor of a superior. Thus in cases where the lawfulness of an order given by a superior is doubtful, an inferior is bound to obey it.
We must remember that a scrupulous conscience is unreliable, and the importance placed on authority in Catholic teaching. When in doubt, a scruple should listen to a superior, the moral responsibility lies with them.

I think these are good guidelines. My problem personally has been knowing when to stop looking for info. If it’s reasonable that someone or even my own memories will not give me the answer that I’m looking for then its over, and the principles can even be applied to that situation but it can still be difficult.
 
These are similar to the 10 commandments for the scrupolous, as given by Scrupouls Anon. This is run by the Redemptorists, and they do tremendous good, without even asking for payment in return. God bless them.👍
 
(There is a whole background that goes into “reflex principles” and how they can and cannot be used or be helpful or not…there are various things to be understood…I would not recommend you using that older work as your guide…or necessarily your seeking to apply them here per se)

While it is true that certain reflex principles can be of help …I would suggest to you that you have a regular confessor and work with him to come up with principles to follow.
 
A regular confessor (best if they have some background in this…but do not wait) whom one can trust (indeed entrust yourself to for the time being!). He can give not only direction in general etc but note certain principles or confirm them --that you can follow. Obedience …is important here…it is the age old remedy.

(of course one seeks a confessor who is faithful to the Church… if something is clearly wrong…like he tells you to murder his secretary…or tells you to use contraception…well that will be clear …and one should not change confessors (and perhaps tell the Bishop) …but one should change due to scruples…by taking this responsibility for you if he makes a mistake…it is on him)

Perhaps some studies in (orthodox) Catholic Theology such as what is in the Catechism (I say perhaps cause some need to not read etc for a while…but simply follow their confessor…depends on the scruples etc)

Prayer

Frequenting the Sacraments (within reason…confession every day…is prob. not a good idea unless one really falls into mortal sin…)

Overcoming ones scruples…ones fears with a “firm foot”.

Contra scruplos agendum est, et fixo operis pede certandum

(Act contrary to scruples and with a firm foot overcome them)

Learning to act against them under the guidance of your confessor. Dismissing them. Indeed “despising them”. Not argue with them. (ie. ones confessor says…“unless you are certain you have committed a mortal sin…go to communion”…and you feel the fear and the doubts and the worries at the time of communion “but perhaps I committed one…?” you tell yourself “I am not certain of any mortal sins and my confessor told me to go” and you act against your fears and go to Communion!) etc

(in a way one needs be “scrupulous” about attending to ones scruples…)

Scruples are to be treated like a barking dog or a hissing goose. One does not stop to argue with either of them does one? (image borrowed from a 15th century Carthusian)

(if I can be of any assistance feel free to pm me)
 
I think the reasoning behind reflex principles for the scrupolous, and only the scruplous- is that they tend to overdo and exaggerate the moral law to the extent that if they think something is wrong it most likely is not. Its a matter of probability. And for a scrupolous person asking whether something is right or wrong, it most likely is right.
 
0129141 said:
I think the reasoning behind reflex principles for the scrupolous, and only the scruplous- is that they tend to overdo and exaggerate the moral law to the extent that if they think something is wrong it most likely is not. Its a matter of probability. And for a scrupolous person asking whether something is right or wrong, it most likely is right.
Click to expand...
The reflex principles the OP discovered are reflex principles per se that were to be understood and used in a particular context in moral theology…

Not per se “those for the scrupulous”.

(though some can be perhaps of some help…when understood etc and with the guidance in particular of their confessor)

Let the those with scruples work with their regular confessor in terms of principles for them to follow.
 
I often hear things like this, but where is the Church teaching to back it up? I wouldn’t want to risk sinning based on some peoples’ advice for the scrupulous.
 
McatholicN said:
I often hear things like this, but where is the Church teaching to back it up? I wouldn’t want to risk sinning based on some peoples’ advice for the scrupulous.
Click to expand...
It is the age old practice in the Church in dealing with scruples…that is one has a regular confessor and that confessor can then direct that person. He can give them various principles that they can follow…

(readers…see my other posts here)
 
I have had spiritual directors who have guided me in the past. I have currently just finished my first week of college, and am looking for one here, though I believe that shouldn’t really be a problem. My past directors have been of much help and support to me. What I would want to avoid with them though, is the situation where I feel like I have to call them up every time I have a worry. I’ve been there and it can get unreasonable. I can’t by any means do this alone, but it is my mind which ultimately has to do something with the scruples. The thing with OCD is that I haven’t entirely lost the ability to reason, it’s just rather difficult. I remember a situation where I had a worry I ran it through my head, came to a solution, but was still worried. I called up my spiritual director and he agreed with my solution, I should’ve known it made sense all along.

It is true that these principles were not written directly for scruples, in fact the book touches upon scrupulosity, its only guideline for that is to blindly follow a director, advice that has been mentioned here. However I think that some scruples have gained a decent ability to reason. In fact I read a more modern book specifically on scrupulosity Scruples and Sainthood by Trent Beattie and it was taking about how “when in doubt it doesn’t count” so when you’re in doubt about something like whether you commuted a grave sin or not, or an obligation, don’t worry about it. There’s also the aforementioned 10 Commandments for the Scrupulous. I think these principles are like that, its ultimately about doubt, and following authority.

Someone mentioned that they wished there was a Church teaching backing these up.
Well to me it’s simply the fact that they were from a seemingly well written and well approved book (it contains the proper approvals, approbations (praiseful intros) from Bishop Michael of the former diocese of Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne and Bishop Pierre Emmanuel of the former diocesis of Tarentaise {and yes I know this is rather old, though mine is an edition published later}) and the fact that they made sense. They’re logical solutions to dealing with the problem of doubt, though since they affect our moral actions, you could call them moral teachings. I have also read the Catechism and didn’t find any true contradictions. Obviously some Church rules have changed though, we can now marry non-Catholics, Communion fast doesn’t last so long, etc. In addition, I know I’ve cross referenced things in the book with stuff in the Catholic Encyclopedia written in kind of the same period, it helps me with understanding. I know that reading moral works not intended for scruples can be risky, but again I can still reason. I just have gauge my situation and go from there.

I don’t think the reflex principles, like any written advice for the scrupulous, are a substitute for a spiritual director, but rather something that can be used in addition, a tool for dealing with doubtful situations. If one doesn’t think that they are adequate for them, then of course I don’t advise using them. I don’t disagree with the fact that a spiritual director should be the primary source for help.

I did like this thread though, especially Bookcats contribution. I would say that lately I have been giving my scruples too much attention. In college this can be deadly. It’s difficult though as in certain situations I would assert that I am in a legitimate moral dilemma, not one created by scrupulosity, its the scrupulosity though that clouds the solution. It does give urgency though to finding a spiritual director around here though. I will get on that.
 
Cascadian said:
I have had spiritual directors …(I have to delete the post for it is too long to post …but I am responding to the one above beginning so).
Click to expand...
PART I

In terms of the OCD – I do not think we can actually comment due to forum rules (no given such advice). But I did save this site (for those for whom it can be helpful) when I saw it advertised: catholictherapists.com/ it helps one to find a therapist who is faithful to the Church. So if you do have OCD in addition to a difficulty with scruples (OCD does not = scrupulosity)…then one ought to seek out such assistance and perhaps medical assistance as well (and of course one with scrupulosity can also find assistance there).

OK now on to scruples per se.

In terms of the use of the general reflex principles you found…I commented above already (one needs to understand their background and place…and they are often to come in when one has not been able to find the answer directly via reason and looking for it etc…and some ought not be used in certain ways etc…I am not saying that general reflex principles like the ones you found do not have a place…or may not be helpful…but one may need some further study…and direction etc).

But let me say more in general about scruples and confessors etc. (readers can also see my other post above).

There various kinds of scruples and scrupulosity and many varied degrees. Also of course persons and their background will vary. One can be a lay person, a Priest , a Religious, a married person, a doctor, professors, a Saint or Doctor of the Church…

Yes often those with scrupulosity are actually quite intelligent for it it is not so much a “reasoning” problem as a difficulty with worry, apparent doubt, ungrounded fear, a weakened will, anxiety. Though there can of course be intellectual scruples…basic mistakes in principles or knowledge. Often though it is not a problem of knowledge.

So yes often one with scruples can reason quite well. But as you described even though you “reason” the thing out…you still have that nagging worry. And you found that your spiritual director-confessor actually confirms what you reasoned!

I had to laugh though there due to your mis-type you said “However I think that some scruples have gained a decent ability to reason.” Such they will never do:) hee hee …unless in some sci-fi movie…“Doctor I think these scruples have actually gained the ability to reason!!..”

Ok back to where I was going.

So yes many reason quite well…especially in other areas of life. But have that cross of scruples still. This is one reason where “obedience” to a good regular confessor is very important. One who is able to say “yes” “no”…etc. This is of great importance…even for those who are quite bright and heck even will become “Doctors of the Church”…as one Saint put it…give me a dog to follow Lord and I will follow…

St. Thomas More put it very nicely:

"Those stuck in the troublesome fear of their own scrupulous conscience should, I say, submit the rule of their own conscience to the counsel of some good man who can temper his advice according to the variety and nature of the scruples. Though the scrupulous might themselves be very knowledgeable, let them in this instance adopt the practice that is customary among doctors. For even the most knowledgeable of doctors will not, when they themselves are sick or injured, put all their trust in themselves. They will, send for colleagues they know to be well qualified, and they will put themselves in their hands, for several reasons. One of these is fear: they know that in their own pain and anxiety they may greatly exaggerate or completely mistake the import of certain symptoms…

Therefore, as I say, let those afflicted with a scrupulous conscience refrain throughout that time from relying on their own judgment and follow, instead, the counsel of someone else, someone who they know to be very knowledgeable and virtuous.

Let them do this especially in the confessional…

Let them not hesitate to quiet their minds and follow what they are bidden there. Let them for a while not think so much the fearfulness of God’s justice, but cheer up at the remembrance of his mercy. Let them presevere in prayer for grace; let them live, and faithfully keep living, in the sure hope of God’s help; and then they shall find, without any doubt, that the shield of God’s faithfulness shall, as the psalmist said so completely protect them that they shall not fear this “terror of the night” of scrupulosity, but shall have instead, a conscience in good peace and quiet."

St. Thomas More

(A Dialogue of Comfort Against Tribulation, Scepter Publishers)

The confessor is seen as even taking the responsibility for the penitent in such direction. It is on his head (of course if he tells one clearly something wrong …like go murder my secretary or use contraception …well one does not follow such…but these things are going to be likely clear …and both here are in the Catechism)
 
PART II

Now yes one does not want to continue necessarily “calling” ones confessor or spiritual director-confessor with every single worry or fear etc. A person with scruples could have many such…depending on their scruples.

This is where though where confessors have given certain “general principles” for the person to follow and judge by. These are to assist them in acting against their scruples in daily life and avoiding them. You can call them a kind of reflex principles if you like. (and you will find that some of them will be kin to the reflex principles you may have run across)

For example things like (these are just examples in my wording often) “Unless you are certain that you have committed a mortal sin --go to communion”, “Unless you are certain you have broken the fast–go to communion”. “Only confess sins you remember from the past and wonder if they were confessed if you are 1. certain it was mortal and 2. certain it was not confessed as we are to confess them”, “you are to not confess any doubtful sins”, “if you doubt you have done your penance, assume you have”, “when in doubt that you gave complete consent to a grave temptation, assume you did not” …“only complete certainty counts” …those sorts of things. I give them here as an example …those with scruples can discuss the matter with their regular confessor.

The particular confessor will know his penitent. He can judge what principles to give him. Many of these sorts of things could only be for those with scruples. Of course a penitent who is able to formulate or borrow such principles …can do so and thus bring them to his confessor in some manner for his confirmation. Then he will have the benefit of not only his advice…but his authority in ones case (as the regular confessor of a person with scruples).

Ok now back to your part. Yes you need to stand firm against your scruples. (it sounds like you are seeking to do so). The fact that one finds a good confessor and “obey” him does not mean that you do nothing and that you are simply going to refer every moral question etc to him. It is not that you personally cannot make any judgments. I imagine you have formed your conscience otherwise quite well …after all you read the Catechism. That your scruples may have particular areas (some persons though are very generally scrupulous in most things and need more serious attention more serious dependence on their confessor for at least a time). So it is not that you do not need to exercise your intellect and your will and your conscience (when not prey to scruples). And even in standing firm against your scruples. And to increase in the virtue of prudence (see CCC). But certainly it is very important to have that regular confessor and to work with him. Speak with him regarding various principles for you to follow. With his help you can work to dismiss your scruples to act against them. And to increase in prudence which will take you even further down the way.

I applaud your seeking to overcome your scruples!

Keep following Christ! In him is our true life.

(If I can be of any help feel free to pm me.)
 
 
Even though it can’t be commented on I know I do have OCD. I’m sure it’s the main cause of my scrupulosity. Thanks for the link, I’ve seen a counselor before but I found that it has been more help for me to see a spiritual director.

Anyways, it can be difficult to get out of a specific situation when my sense of reason is surrounded by irrational thoughts and worries. I think in that case it’s important to hold on to principles that you know make sense. I further have confidence in the principles I came across because in my constant thinking about morality, I’ve come to see the reasoning behind the them. Perhaps there’s a better example, but I’ll compare it to coming across a mathematical theorem, then proving it on your own.

I think I have crossed over into “intellectual scruples” before, a problem which can only be made worse by OCD. Nonetheless it helps to learn about the philosophy behind morality. I find it personally fascinating too.

I formally discovered I had scrupulosity 4 years ago, I’ve made incredible progress since then, at some long-lasting easy times even living as if I didn’t have it. However since then I’ve also made a lot of legitimate progress in understanding Catholic morality. I would say that being a Catholic is rather tough, even without scrupulosity, after all we do each have a cross to bear. Coming from a scrupulous person that may sound like a concerning statement, but I think it makes sense. Perhaps some of those easy times I remember came from ignorance, looking back I would say I was reckless and not very prudent. We have an obligation to think about our actions and their consequences and my spiritual director agreed with me. So I will keep learning, searching for solutions logical principles that make sense and can help me.

Now I haven’t read the entire catechism, by any means, though in my situation I’m not worried that there’s anything that I’m severely lacking, though I should probably read my copy more. I know it was recommended against, but I try to be responsible and I’ve gained a taste for the older books. They just go into so much detail. Another one I liked was Handbook of the Christian Religion by Wilhelm Wilmers. I know that like any moral guidebook they have a risk of making my scrupulosity worse, but I hope my comfort with these book is actually a testament to the progress that I have made both intellectually and with scrupulosity.
 
Some of what I want to note…I have already expressed above. So instead of repeating some of it …I will invite perhaps another reading of what I wrote above.

Particularly in terms of understanding theologically what certain “reflex principles” mean or do not mean theologically and when they can be used…and when not used…(particularly the one).

But most importantly:

And the discussing with a* regular confessor* what “principles” in terms of dealing with scruples when the arise --are suited to such difficulty as the scruples create.

Hence to deal with this line: “Anyways, it can be difficult to get out of a specific situation when my sense of reason is surrounded by irrational thoughts and worries. I think in that case it’s important to hold on to principles that you know make sense.” --thus with consultation with ones confessor one can have such “principles” to hold onto and make use of when one is in the midst of scruples etc. Principles (for dealing with scruples) that have been used for just such purposes for years and years…or similar ones. Either given by him or confirmed for you by him. Thus given them the added authority of ones “regular confessor” in terms of one with scruples. Such has been the age old practice and for good reason.

Also I would note that there is to be more caution for one who has a difficulty with scrupulosity in terms of some of the older works of moral theology. They can be a particular danger in certain area for those person with that difficulty (can make their scrupulosity worse perhaps). And also there has been a renewal in moral theology since then as called for by the Second Vatican Council. (which is to say that older works do not have much to still be pressed into service in moral theology etc but I just note such. One interesting work to read on the subject is staugustine.net/Morality.html.

A blessed Lords Day!

BC
 
Alright, well thanks for the advice and the links. I appreciate it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top