Why are the scrupulous forbidden to become manualists

Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m normally a big fan of the traditional Catholic moral theology manuals, but I, too, would discourage the scrupulous from reading them. Among other things, they could lead to endless self-examination, as well as a variation on the “medical student syndrome” phenomenon, viz. that everything in the book applies to them, substitute “sin” for “illness” and you’ll see what I mean.

Scrupulous people need to find one good confessor, and ask that confessor to provide them with some bedrock principles upon which to form their consideration of moral behavior.
 
I got to thinking about “textbook-itis” that we suffered in nursing school. Then I come here and learn of this. Good information to have.

In either case - medical student syndrome or textbook-itis - I think it’s actually a good sign that they’re experiencing it. I’d be concerned if they didn’t.

Autism follows manuals. But I think there’s a big difference between scruples and Autism.

Blessings,
Cloisters
 
Autism is easily observed and poorly understood. Similarly, scrupulosity - a form of anxiety - may also be observed, but there is cognitive behavioral therapy and therapeutic drugs to address all forms of anxiety, including scrupulosity.

Autism/Asperger’s has genetic and potentially environmental components, and thus psychological therapy may be of little effect, particularly in the more severe cases, such as non-verbal autism. Higher functioning autistics tend to conform to surrounding society through a process of socialization, learning “normal” responses and adopting them as much as possible.

I think that the difference is in treatment/coping strategy. Anxious thoughts were often learned and, to a greater or lesser degree, be “unlearned” or controlled. Autism may be countered or guided to a degree, but consists of a lifetime of adapting to the norms of the prevailing culture.
 
Last edited:
Francisco_Fernando said:
Why would they lead to endless self-examination
Click to expand...
Because one could start reading, and come to think that everything in the book applies to you, sins you’ve never even heard of before, sins you would never have thought of committing, and this could be very dangerous for a soul afflicted with scrupulosity.

Moral theology manuals can be very useful, but they’re not for scrupulous people.
 
Read about Martin Luther - before he left the Church. Read what his confessor, Fr. Johann von Staupitz, had to say about him. Even the brief Wiki article will demonstrate what anxiety and scruples can do, and did do to Luther.
 
po18guy said:
Read about Martin Luther - before he left the Church. Read what his confessor, Fr. Johann von Staupitz, had to say about him. Even the brief Wiki article will demonstrate what anxiety and scruples can do, and did do to Luther
Click to expand...
That is true, he feared that he could not quit sinning, and had difficulty with purity in general, this per Erik Erikson in Young Man Luther. He finally read the Scripture verse about being saved by faith, and evidently he just cracked or something, and interpreted this as meaning that your sins didn’t matter as long as you accepted Christ as Lord and Savior. Thus, Protestantism was born.
 
I found that one must study Luther at all ages to know what he was thinking, as his mind and theology wandered much. As Saint Peter sagely wrote, the unstable twist and distort the words of Paul (2 Peter 3:16). At least at one point, based on that uncontrollable scrupulosity, the only way he could survive psychologically was to make sin irrelevant. He seems to have read “where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more” (Romans 5:20) into a license to sin. He stopped short of applying Romans 6:1-2. He became almost Calvinist in this thinking in that he could not lose his salvation due to sin and thus, he may have held to a form of the Calvinist “perseverance of the saints”.
As we see, his theology was extremely easy to accept and has now devolved into the canard of “Jesus paid the price for my all sins, past, present and future” - yet not one I ask can reliably state whether sin damages our relationship with God or if repentance is needed.
Back on topic: cognitive behavioral therapy is aimed at eliminating or greatly reducing such destructive thought patterns.
 
po18guy said:
At least at one point, based on that uncontrollable scrupulosity, the only way he could survive psychologically was to make sin irrelevant. He seems to have read “where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more” (Romans 5:20) into a license to sin. He stopped short of applying Romans 6:1-2. He became almost Calvinist in this thinking in that he could not lose his salvation due to sin and thus, he may have held to a form of the Calvinist “perseverance of the saints”.

As we see, his theology was extremely easy to accept and has now devolved into the canard of “Jesus paid the price for my all sins, past, present and future” - yet not one I ask can reliably state whether sin damages our relationship with God or if repentance is needed.
Click to expand...
The first sentence, which I have bolded, is so, SO key.

I always say (for what that’s worth) that for Protestants (generally speaking, surely there are exceptions, I speak in the main), “my sin is not my sin anymore”, and “sin is not really real”. Past, present, future, everything’s covered, and the only reasons left not to sin is (a) because a Christian shouldn’t do that and (b) “what will people think?”. (Social respectability and “a good name” in the congregation or the community is huge with them. Go live in any small Bible Belt town and you’ll see what I mean, and I know, because I grew up in one. Secret sins that no one will ever find out about, well, I’m not sure how they handle that.) In their way of parsing Christianity, we have a “sin nature” and there’s no getting rid of it — they’re not really wrong on that count — and the only thing to do, is to trust Jesus for your salvation.
 
Satan attacks. Always and everywhere. He is a cancer on everything good. He attacks Catholicism in union with his knowing or unknowing allies in Protestantism, Atheism, Islam, Mormonism, secularism and all other non and pseudo-Christian sects. He attacks “bible-based” communities less, as I believe he sees his work being done there, in spite of their protestations to the contrary. Public holiness, private immorality. There is a word for that.
This is all detestable, as is the intrusion of sexual perverts into the priesthood, combined with spineless bishops who fail to hold them accountable. It all emits the detestable stench of the evil one.
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
He attacks “bible-based” communities less, as I believe he sees his work being done there, in spite of their protestations to the contrary.
Click to expand...
Exactly. He really doesn’t have to attack non-Catholic religions, because to a greater or lesser extent, they are already teaching error and/or failing to teach truth in its completeness, a phenomenon which is surely gratifying to the evil one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top