Saints that scrupulous people should avoid reading?

[AussieTrish]

Excuse me, but a word has specific meaning. If the church has added another meaning to a word, then it should try another word for it. Maybe the church’s word for it should be hyper-scrupulosity? Having scruples is not bad, but being hyper-scrupulous is. There, I used it in a sentence.

**The Church’s meaning is the original meaning of the word.
The origin of the word arises from late Middle English (in the sense ‘troubled with doubts’): from French scrupuleux or Latin scrupulosus, from scrupulus (see scruple).
Oxford English dictionary.

Secular world changed it. The secular world should choose the different word!

The secular meaning is ‘diligent’ and ‘conscientious’. That does not mean ‘troubled’ or besieged by doubts.
**
[None of us like to be incorrect, but we all sometimes are in some way or other. It really is okay and no reason to feel unhappy.
It was a interesting proposition, which actually highlights how living language develops and changes from the original meaning of words.]

 

[Julie_de_Sales]

Oh I just never learn! Or rather I am stubborn. The first half of 2013 was Hell for be (I do believe I had a foretaste of it) and I distinctly remembering thinking to myself so many times I wouldn’t wish this pain on my worst enemy. Well, one of the impulses I had was to read things about Hell and torment because I felt guilt if I otherwise tried to avoid them since I reasoned that to do such was evasion. So I remember going to my parish library and reading through some pages in one of St. Alphonsus’ books in which he discussed Hell. One of the things that stood out to me is how Hell will be more torturous for those who meditated on it frequently in this life, because they of all people should have known better.

A few months ago – I was still in school – I remember I was reading the comment section of a blog in which someone mentioned the sermon of St. Leonard of Port Maurice on the Little Number who are Saved, and I read it and was terrified. If I recall correctly he supported his arguments with the positions of various big name saints. Somewhere int he sermon he also responds to a hypothetical in which someone questions God’s mercy and he responds by saying: Silence! Rash tongue!"

And I happened upon a book containing sermons on the Cur of Ars when again I was at my parish library, this being a few days ago, and I had to close the book and put it back because I got nervous. There was a part in their in which he preaches on the responsibility that parents have toward their children, and said something to the effect that if someone’s children go to Hell, then so will the parent. And then he warned parents about sending their children into the fields because the children do abominable things and many of them (he might have said most) make their First Communion sacrilegiously.

I couldn’t handle it. And I’m not even a parent.

In my opinion, if you find yourself reading something that gives you anxiety, or increases your scruples, or makes you doubt salvation, than you should stop reading it, even if it’s a book from a saint. God doesn’t correct us by these means. For example, the Cure of Ars was so severe in his sermons because he was talking for his parishioners and the majority of them were living sinful lives and were having a lot of bad habits. With a devout person or with a scrupulous one, I’m sure he would have taken a different approach. In fact, I read that he once confessed a scrupulous young women and he told her to be more at ease, and that God was not like her, that He was not afraid to love her! I found it so beautifully said
And another inconvenient is that once you read something troubling it’s hard to get over it, it haunts you. So we don’t have to do this to ourselves.

 

[TravisandJill]

Well is it true or not that if a child goes to hell the parent will also? If its
not true then why would a saint say it is? I am also very scrupulous and find things like this incredibly frustrating. It’s as if the Church likes to say scruples are bad and to get rid of them but allow things like this to be said which causes them in the first place. What do they expect??? Of course any caring parent is now going to scruple about things like this and the first communion issue after being told so by a saint.

 

[Ana_v]

Well is it true or not that if a child goes to hell the parent will also? If its
not true then why would a saint say it is? I am also very scrupulous and find things like this incredibly frustrating.

I remember St. John Vianney said in the above context (I am paraphrasing based on memory):

Some of you will ask, “But what are we supposed to do? We can’t follow them around all the time?”

In response he said, that he will not answer to that. He then reiterated that parents have a grave responsibility.

I also remember St. Alphonsus de Liguori saying in one of his books (in which, addressing women, he compares religious life to marriage, speaking of the excellence of the former, and listing the troubles of the latter) he mentions how one of the burdens of in the married state is scrupling over the raising of children. Then again this Saint was scrupulous but no doubt he encountered scruples among mothers.

As a result, I am quite fearful of either vocation. In the former you have many graces and avoid various temptations in the world, but all the more reason why we are expected to be holy and become a Saint and woe to the religious who fail for wasted graces. And surely all the more painful Purgatory will be for religious. It seems our punishment is commensurate with the highness of our calling since that determines how deep our falls are when we fall into sin.

I know I will be demanded an account if I fail to follow whichever is my vocation. Not sure what I will do, although at this point I am inclined to be single celibate. And as I’ve said in another thread maybe I’ll become a nomad or missionary.

 

[Bookcat]

Well is it true or not that if a child goes to hell the parent will also? If its
not true then why would a saint say it is? I am also very scrupulous and find things like this incredibly frustrating. It’s as if the Church likes to say scruples are bad and to get rid of them but allow things like this to be said which causes them in the first place. What do they expect???

One must take what a Saint writes in context and with the proper understanding. Time and place, original audience, nuances of meaning etc etc must be taken into account.

Those who are prone to scruple over such - should not read such.

They need to be firm with themselves.

 

[Ana_v]

I am also very scrupulous and find things like this incredibly frustrating. It’s as if the Church likes to say scruples are bad and to get rid of them but allow things like this to be said which causes them in the first place. What do they expect??? .

I know the feeling you describe. I think the apparent conflict can be resolved, in a word, by prudence, which Bookcat alludes to.

If a person to be canonized has left any writings, the Church reviews them. Thus, if a person becomes canonized, the Church has at the very least implied approval of what the person has written. Objectively, then, unless expressly judged otherwise, the writing(s) of any one Saint are good.

Though subjectively, for particular people, in particular circumstances, some writings might not be appropriate to read.

So I also have to agree with Bookcat about making scrupulous people making a resolution not to read material that can exacerbate their condition.

I have certain passages stuck in my memory though

Anyways, I will pray for you TravisandJill!

 

[Bookcat]

If a person to be canonized has left any writings, the Church reviews them. Thus, if a person becomes canonized, the Church has at the very least implied approval of what the person has written.

The Church does not necessarily agree with all that Saints have written.

A Saint can make many mistakes!

And Saints can* disagree* with each other…

*they are not infallible…(unless of course if they are a Pope exercising his charism of infallibility…)

 

[TravisandJill]

So in regards to the comment about many children making sacreligious communions, could that be because the particular saint maybe had some Jansenism leanings?

 

[Bookcat]

So in regards to the comment about many children making sacreligious communions, could that be because the particular saint maybe had some Jansenism leanings?

If the quote is correct -

He lived when? 1786-1859

Many where making their first Communion at an older age during that time…not 7 year olds.

So he would be discussing* older children* who in a local situation he knew about.

 

[Ana_v]

Below is the relevant excerpt. I was able to find the sermons online at:
basilica.org/pages/ebooks.php

THE DUTIES OF PARENTS
I warned you that you should be sure to keep a watchful eye over your
children when you send them out to the fields, for out there, far away from
you, they can give themselves over to whatever the Devil may put into their
minds.

What if I dared to tell you that they carry on with all sorts of ugly and
immodest practices, that they pass most of the day in all sorts of abominable
ways? I know very well that the majority of them do not know the evil which
they do – but wait until they do acquire that knowledge. At that moment the
Devil will not fail to remind them of what they have done in order to make
them commit that sin or others. Do you know, my dear brethren, what your
negligence or your ignorance produces?

Look at it, then, and keep it in mind. A large number of the children that you
send out to the fields make their First Holy Communion sacrilegiously. They
have contracted shameful habits, and either they dare not confess them or
they do not give them up. Later, if a priest who does not wish to damn them
refuses them absolution, people will reproach him and say: “That’s because
it’s my child…”

Go away, you wretched sinners, and watch a little more carefully over your
children and they will not be refused. Yes, indeed, I am telling you that the
great majority of your children began their bad ways and earned their later
rejection during the time when they went out to the fields.

YOU WILL ANSWER FOR THEIR SOULS

But, you will tell me, we cannot be always following them around. We have
other things to do.

As to that, my dear brethren, I will say nothing. All I know is that you will
answer for their souls as much as for your own.

But we do all we can.

I do not know whether you do all you can, but this much I do know: if your
children incur damnation at home with you, you, too, will be damned. That
much I know, and nothing else.

 

[Ana_v]

The Church does not necessarily agree with all that Saints have written.

A Saint can make many mistakes!

And Saints can* disagree* with each other…

*they are not infallible…(unless of course if they are a Pope exercising his charism of infallibility…)

Yes you are right. Admittedly, I often forget about this nuance. It is because I tend to see that Saints as authorities, and feel compelled to assent to what they say, otherwise feel guilty, especially if they are mystics because then I assume Jesus would have corrected them if they erred.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes you are right. Admittedly, I often forget about this nuance. It is because I tend to see that Saints as authorities, and feel compelled to assent to what they say, otherwise feel guilty, especially if they are mystics because then I assume Jesus would have corrected them if they erred.

Mystics can err.

Saints can err.

I can err (*though do not tell my wife)

You want to look more to the Teaching of the Church.