What is Scrupulosity?

[fakename]

So I checked for the second time with a priest, though not the one that I confess to all the time.

IMO I might be a little scrupulous but I’m not sure yet.

So lets get this analysis started:

Scrupulous people ask a lot of questions but (1) what makes asking questions so essentially scrupulous? (2) it doesn’t follow from the fact that scrupulous people ask a lot that anyone who asks questions is scrupulous…or does it?

Secondly, I thought scrupulosity implied lack of peace/fear. But I do not fear (irrationally at least).

Finally, scrupulous people often second guess themselves and wonder if they could have done something better. But does that imply that perfectionism is bad?

A little confused here

 

[thistle]

So I checked for the second time with a priest, though not the one that I confess to all the time.

IMO I might be a little scrupulous but I’m not sure yet.

So lets get this analysis started:

Scrupulous people ask a lot of questions but (1) what makes asking questions so essentially scrupulous? (2) it doesn’t follow from the fact that scrupulous people ask a lot that anyone who asks questions is scrupulous…or does it?

Secondly, I thought scrupulosity implied lack of peace/fear. But I do not fear (irrationally at least).

Finally, scrupulous people often second guess themselves and wonder if they could have done something better. But does that imply that perfectionism is bad?

A little confused here

Modern Catholic Dictionary:

SCRUPULOSITY. The habit of imagining sin where none exists, or grave sin where the matter is venial. To overcome scrupulosity, a person needs to be properly instructed in order to form a right conscience, and in extreme cases the only remedy is absolute obedience (for a time) to a prudent confessor.

 

[Miguelita]

To me, normal questions and conscience become scruples when you’e worrying over sins that you logically, through research, can know are not sins, or if your anxiety is so bad it interferes with your lfie

 

[MidnightSun12]

A really good example of scrupulosity is when somebody is trying to observe the 1 hour fast rule before recieving the eucharist. The scrupulous person might notice that some food was stuck in their teeth and they accidentally swallowed it within the 1 hour window. A non-scrupulous person probably wouldn’t even think about this.

Both of these people are following their interpretations of the 1 hour fast… it’s just that the scrupulous person will get hung up on the details while the non-scrupulous person can apply the proper amount of reason to interpret the spirit behind the rule…

 

[fakename]

Modern Catholic Dictionary:

SCRUPULOSITY. The habit of imagining sin where none exists, or grave sin where the matter is venial. To overcome scrupulosity, a person needs to be properly instructed in order to form a right conscience, and in extreme cases the only remedy is absolute obedience (for a time) to a prudent confessor.

In that case, a great deal of people can be considered scrupulous then right?

I mean to say that scrupulosity is neither always an emotional state nor is it always an irrational (in a certain sense) state.

For after all, many arguments can be deployed to make some people think that something is a mortal and not a venial sin and etc. It seems to me that scrupulosity can then be called a simple state of being incorrect that something is seriously evil.

But I don’t think this works out totally since the Catholic Encyclopedia gives us (what I think are) the essential symptoms of scrupulosity: Scrupulous people are “…tortured by an overshadowing dread…”.

So is it true that the scrupulous person must have dread?

I’ll have to check the Summa for a good definition of scrupulousness. I think that, there’s a good chance that scruples are based on the material object of willing and so is defined strictly by a focus on sin and not on any inability to be sufficiently relaxed regarding any virtue.

 

[Daizies]

The difference between a person who believes in error that something is a sin, and a scrupulous person can be illustrated this way.
Lets say that you accidentally ate your roommate’s ice cream. Upon realizing that it wasn’t yours, you replace it. Now let’s say someone tells you it was a mortal sin to eat your roommate’s ice cream. They present a very convincing argument, and lead you to believe that it was a mortal sin.
Now, let’s say you are browsing on CAF before heading off to confession, and you read from a very reliable person (for the sake of argument, say it is on the Ask an Apologist Forum) that for a sin to be mortal, it must have grave matter, full knowledge and full consent. A non scrupulous person would conclude they were in error, perhaps check the Catechism to be sure, and then consider it closed.
A scrupulous person, after reading it and checking in the Catechism, may then decide to call a friend and ask. When told no, unconvinced, they start a thread asking if eating their roommate’s ice cream by mistake was a sin. Maybe I really knew it was theirs and subconsciously wanted to get even with them? Maybe I did it on purpose and then made myself forget? and so on. Then, after being told that it is not a mortal sin over and over consistently, they then go to a priest to confess it. They feel the priest didn’t take it seriously enough, so they go to another priest and confess it again - perhaps changing the story a little to make themselves appear more culpable. This priest doesn’t take it seriously either, so they go to another priest and confess again…

Does this help to clarify a little?

 

[fakename]

The difference between a person who believes in error that something is a sin, and a scrupulous person can be illustrated this way.
Lets say that you accidentally ate your roommate’s ice cream. Upon realizing that it wasn’t yours, you replace it. Now let’s say someone tells you it was a mortal sin to eat your roommate’s ice cream. They present a very convincing argument, and lead you to believe that it was a mortal sin.
Now, let’s say you are browsing on CAF before heading off to confession, and you read from a very reliable person (for the sake of argument, say it is on the Ask an Apologist Forum) that for a sin to be mortal, it must have grave matter, full knowledge and full consent. A non scrupulous person would conclude they were in error, perhaps check the Catechism to be sure, and then consider it closed.
A scrupulous person, after reading it and checking in the Catechism, may then decide to call a friend and ask. When told no, unconvinced, they start a thread asking if eating their roommate’s ice cream by mistake was a sin. Maybe I really knew it was theirs and subconsciously wanted to get even with them? Maybe I did it on purpose and then made myself forget? and so on. Then, after being told that it is not a mortal sin over and over consistently, they then go to a priest to confess it. They feel the priest didn’t take it seriously enough, so they go to another priest and confess it again - perhaps changing the story a little to make themselves appear more culpable. This priest doesn’t take it seriously either, so they go to another priest and confess again…

Does this help to clarify a little?

Well if this is true, then I certainly don’t fit the definition of a scrupulous person.

It mirrors what I said elsewhere, that just because all scrupulous people ask questions, question themselves, and confess a lot doesn’t mean that anyone who does these things is scrupulous (for that would be mere assuming the consequent).

Of course then, how is scrupulosity in this sense (that is, in the sense of being unreasonably fearful) not a sin? for people are making a bad moral judgment (they believe that something sinless is a sin) and are acting outside the mean of a certain virtue (they are too strict). So clearly, assuming intent, then this is a formal sin and w/o intent it is a material sin. Either way, it seems to be at least inculpably sinful?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

A scrupulous person also fails to understand the mercy of God.

The focus on their unworthiness without learning that God loves us, irrespective of our worth.

Jim

 

[Bookcat]

One must distinguish between a scrupulous conscience (though in a way it is more a “a conscience affected by scruples”) and a delicate conscience.

A ‘delicate conscience’ sees the finer distinctions and seeks very much to avoid even very small sins …and …who can judge normally between mortal and venial sin…when in doubt is able to make judgments overcoming his doubt by prudence or abide by good advice etc

As for scruples…or scrupulosity

A person who struggles with such take venial sin to be mortal…or non-sins to be sins…or are plagued by doubts…seeking an unreasonable kind of certainty…confesses all sorts of unneeded details…experiences unreasonable fears/anxieties about sins…seeing them or fearing them where they need not…is always or often worried about past confessions or how they said a thing in confession…if they fulfilled their penance or did this or that correctly etc etc…often involving what if-ing" in an excessive way.

Scruples can come in many and varied forms and degrees.

The French call it the doubting disease (though it is not a disease) for one has lot of problems knowing one knows…thus with doubt (or more often “apparent doubt”).

Of course there are degrees and it is possible for a person to have generally a delicate conscience or a normal conscience and still have a struggle with scruples in certain areas…or have very transient scruples such at the time of their conversion …or deeper conversion etc.

And a person may go from one to the other…

One combats scruples with a good regular confessor…(via a kind of obedience)

by forming ones conscience…(with such as the Catechism etc)

and with his guidance acting against ones scruples…

possibly by him giving some general principles for the person to follow in their case.

by prayer…

etc

 

[Bookcat]

Also they can tend to seek a kind of certainty that is not needful or is beyond even what one can often arrive at.

 

[Daizies]

Well if this is true, then I certainly don’t fit the definition of a scrupulous person.

It mirrors what I said elsewhere, that just because all scrupulous people ask questions, question themselves, and confess a lot doesn’t mean that anyone who does these things is scrupulous (for that would be mere assuming the consequent).

Of course then, how is scrupulosity in this sense (that is, in the sense of being unreasonably fearful) not a sin? for people are making a bad moral judgment (they believe that something sinless is a sin) and are acting outside the mean of a certain virtue (they are too strict). So clearly, assuming intent, then this is a formal sin and w/o intent it is a material sin. Either way, it seems to be at least inculpably sinful?

Scrupulosity is considered to be a form of OCD - so you don’t necessarily have full control over your fears and compulsions depending on the severity. That’s why, as others have said, a good regular confessor is important, because you can’t always trust what your brain tells you (I have OCD, and for me at least, that’s what it can be like). And some form of therapy, like cognitive behavioural therapy can be tremendously helpful as well (assuming the person can afford it or has insurance coverage).

 

[fakename]

One must distinguish between a scrupulous conscience (though in a way it is more a “a conscience affected by scruples”) and a delicate conscience.

A ‘delicate conscience’ sees the finer distinctions and seeks very much to avoid even very small sins …and …who can judge normally between mortal and venial sin…when in doubt is able to make judgments overcoming his doubt by prudence or abide by good advice etc

As for scruples…or scrupulosity

A person who struggles with such take venial sin to be mortal…or non-sins to be sins…or are plagued by doubts…seeking an unreasonable kind of certainty…confesses all sorts of unneeded details…experiences unreasonable fears/anxieties about sins…seeing them or fearing them where they need not…is always or often worried about past confessions or how they said a thing in confession…if they fulfilled their penance or did this or that correctly etc etc…often involving what if-ing" in an excessive way.

Scruples can come in many and varied forms and degrees.

The French call it the doubting disease (though it is not a disease) for one has lot of problems knowing one knows…thus with doubt (or more often “apparent doubt”).

Of course there are degrees and it is possible for a person to have generally a delicate conscience or a normal conscience and still have a struggle with scruples in certain areas…or have very transient scruples such at the time of their conversion …or deeper conversion etc.

And a person may go from one to the other…

One combats scruples with a good regular confessor…(via a kind of obedience)

by forming ones conscience…(with such as the Catechism etc)

and with his guidance acting against ones scruples…

possibly by him giving some general principles for the person to follow in their case.

by prayer…

etc

Well I think that if this is true, then there are plenty of scrupulous people who are not physically or psychologically off, but merely not informed. Indeed, anyone who is too strict or too fearful may be called scrupulous and this includes stoics, jansenists, etc.

So totally reasonable men and peoples are indeed scrupulous, like marcus aurelius, cato, the romans, pythagoreans?

But I think that the Catholic encyclopedia article and/or the general use of the term seems to imply that scruples are pathological deformities and not just misunderstandings. Indeed, if scruples were just misunderstandings, then what good is obedience or the advice to seek a confessor if misunderstandings are not primarily removed by obedience but by thorough syllogisms?

 

[fakename]

Scrupulosity is considered to be a form of OCD - so you don’t necessarily have full control over your fears and compulsions depending on the severity. That’s why, as others have said, a good regular confessor is important, because you can’t always trust what your brain tells you (I have OCD, and for me at least, that’s what it can be like). And some form of therapy, like cognitive behavioural therapy can be tremendously helpful as well (assuming the person can afford it or has insurance coverage).

But I have full control of my fears? Is there something else you meant to say?

 

[Daizies]

But I have full control of my fears? Is there something else you meant to say?

I wasn’t referring to you specifically, after all, I don’t know you personally. What I was referring to was scrupulosity specifically, and your question about its inherent sinfulness. My point is that if a person has OCD, they have little to no culpability for their fears and compulsions as they do not generally have control over them - with the provision that they do everything the are capable of doing to get help, like therapy and medication and so on. Because with therapy and medication OCD may be controllable (depending on the severity). The relevance of this is that, as I said earlier, scrupulosity is a form of OCD.
You get to draw your own conclusion if it is applicable or not.

 

[Bookcat]

Well I think that if this is true, then there are plenty of scrupulous people who are not physically or psychologically off, but merely not informed. Indeed, anyone who is too strict or too fearful may be called scrupulous and this includes stoics, jansenists, etc.

So totally reasonable men and peoples are indeed scrupulous, like marcus aurelius, cato, the romans, pythagoreans?

But I think that the Catholic encyclopedia article and/or the general use of the term seems to imply that scruples are pathological deformities and not just misunderstandings. Indeed, if scruples were just misunderstandings, then what good is obedience or the advice to seek a confessor if misunderstandings are not primarily removed by obedience but by thorough syllogisms?

Scruples and scrupulosity can have various “causes” behind them. Not sure what your referring to with “if this is true” for I covered a good deal of ground in that post (likely your referring to the transient scruples).

But Yes not being informed is one of them for some.

But lack of information per se does not = scrupulosity (so your examples there do not fit as you surmised).

And indeed for others they are very well informed -professors or what not …

 

[Bookcat]

Scrupulosity is considered to be a form of OCD

While many who struggle with scruples have OCD and while those who thus have OCD can struggle with scrupulosity…

Scruples/Scrupulosity per se does not = OCD

(but I will note too – that we are not permitted here to get into certain areas: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=134056)

 

[Bookcat]

Well I think that if this is true, then there are plenty of scrupulous people who are not physically or psychologically off, but merely not informed. Indeed, anyone who is too strict or too fearful may be called scrupulous and this includes stoics, jansenists, etc.

So totally reasonable men and peoples are indeed scrupulous, like marcus aurelius, cato, the romans, pythagoreans?

But I think that the Catholic encyclopedia article and/or the general use of the term seems to imply that scruples are pathological deformities and not just misunderstandings. Indeed, if scruples were just misunderstandings, then what good is obedience or the advice to seek a confessor if misunderstandings are not primarily removed by obedience but by thorough syllogisms?

Scruples and scrupulosity can have various “causes” behind them. Not sure what your referring to with “if this is true” for I covered a good deal of ground in that post (likely your referring to the transient scruples).

But Yes not being informed is one of them for some.

But lack of information per se does not = scrupulosity (so your examples there do not fit as you surmised).

And indeed for others they are very well informed -professors, Monks, or what not …

 

[fakename]

Scruples and scrupulosity can have various “causes” behind them. Not sure what your referring to with “if this is true” for I covered a good deal of ground in that post (likely your referring to the transient scruples).

But Yes not being informed is one of them for some.

But lack of information per se does not = scrupulosity (so your examples there do not fit as you surmised).

And indeed for others they are very well informed -professors, Monks, or what not …

Just trying to understand this more, and what I meant was that If what you said was true, then clearly any over-strictness is scrupulosity. But any over-strictness can be caused by misunderstandings and so some misunderstandings (not misunderstandings per se but ones that deal with convincing people to be over-strict) are the causes of scrupulosity.

I’m also not saying that all the causes of scrupulosity are misunderstandings. But nonetheless, it seems that if this is the case, then obedience wouldn’t be the cure of all scrupulosity but sometimes more reading and analysis would be. And yet the latter is always forbidden to scrupulous people.

 

[Daizies]

While many who struggle with scruples have OCD and while those who thus have OCD can struggle with scrupulosity…

Scruples/Scrupulosity per se does not = OCD

(but I will note too – that we are not permitted here to get into certain areas: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=134056)

I was relying on psychiatric definitions which define it as a form of OCD I don’t write the definitions. And I know not everyone who has OCD has scruples, I NEVER said that.
And if you look at my posts in their entirety, I told the OP I was not commenting on them specifically and they were to draw their own conclusions. How is that offering medical advice? I’m just sharing from personal experience since I actually have OCD.

 

[Daizies]

Ok, just to avoid confusion, since I don’t seem to be explaining myself well, here is my disclaimer:

I am not offering medical advice.
I am not a medical professional.
I only share what I know through treatment of my own OCD, and research about it.
For information regarding your own issues, consult your primary care professional.

Hopefully that will clear up any misunderstandings people may have about what I was saying.