{"id":32877,"date":"2022-01-18T20:23:01","date_gmt":"2022-01-18T20:23:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/?p=32877"},"modified":"2022-01-18T20:23:01","modified_gmt":"2022-01-18T20:23:01","slug":"a-problem-with-scrupulositas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/2022\/01\/18\/a-problem-with-scrupulositas\/","title":{"rendered":"A problem with “scrupulositas”"},"content":{"rendered":"

I learned a word this week.\u00a0 The word is “scrupulosity”, meaning a self-tormenting and obsessive worry about committing minor sins.\u00a0 I learned of it from a twitter thread here<\/a>, where some devout Roman Catholics were discussing some less than ideal behaviour by religious orders:<\/p>\n

\n

@jdflynn: When I was in college, I knew a lot of guys who heard Legionaries of Christ vocations directors tell them that: a: they definitely had a vocation b: the only way to meaningfully live that vocation was to join the Legion. That’s not spiritual advice. That’s manipulative coercion.<\/p>\n

@LeahLibresco: A friend of mine was entangled by a women\u2019s order that counseled everyone that if you wondered about a vocation, that meant you *did* have a vocation, and any other questions or doubts were from the devil. They were placing thorns in her path and millstones round their own necks …<\/p>\n

@RCPreKTeacher: Good grief. Speaking as someone who has struggled with scrupulosity <\/span>in the past, I cannot imagine what a terrible situation it would be going to the priests of such orders as your regular confessors, if that’s the kind of spiritual advice the order is giving regularly.<\/p>\n

@LeahLibresco: It is terrible spiritual abuse. It does serious harm to the person counseled and puts the counselor in intense spiritual danger<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The term seems to originate in the Roman Catholic world. There is a useful article, “Scrupulosity: What It Is and How to Overcome it” by Charlie Johnson at the Catholic Stand website (21 May 2016) here<\/a>, referencing Bernard of Clairvaux in the 12th century.<\/p>\n

The Wikipedia article suggests that this religious problem in some cases may be the manifestation of a form of OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder).\u00a0 Under the “History” section of that article we find this interesting statement:<\/p>\n

\n

Scrupulosity is a modern-day psychological problem that echoes a traditional use of the term\u00a0scruples<\/i>\u00a0in a religious context, e.g. by\u00a0Catholics<\/a>, to mean obsessive concern with one’s own sins and compulsive performance of religious devotion. <\/sup>This use of the term dates to the 12th century.[14]<\/p>\n

14. Taylor CZ (2002). “Religious addiction: obsession with spirituality”.\u00a0Pastoral Psych<\/i>.\u00a050<\/b>\u00a0(4): 291\u2013315.\u00a0doi<\/a>:10.1023\/A:1014074130084<\/a>.\u00a0S2CID<\/a>\u00a0147184112<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

There’s no mention of Bernard. But I was interested in the idea that the term “scrupulosity” dates to the 12th century (the careless wording of the Wikipedia article might lead the unwary to suppose that “scruples” is meant here).\u00a0 So I looked up the Taylor article, which contained the following statement on p.297:<\/p>\n

\n

Scrupulosity actually dates back to the twelfth century. It is derived from the Latin word scrupus<\/em>. Scrupulus<\/em> is the diminutive form, meaning a small stone. The neutral form scrupulum<\/em> is the smallest division of weight, about the twenty-fourth part of an ounce. This tiny amount could tip the balance of a scale (Rapoport, 1989).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This claim, in varied wording, appears all over the place.\u00a0 So what is the reference?<\/p>\n

“Rapoport” turned out to be Judith L. Rapoport, The boy who couldn\u2019t stop washing: The experience and treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder<\/em>. New York: E. P. Dutton (1989).\u00a0 No page number was given.\u00a0 A borrowable version of this book may be found here<\/a>, which I consulted.<\/p>\n

The page is actually page 237, an appendix on “The Religious Perspective”, beginning with “The Catholic Church and OCD”.\u00a0 The text began:<\/p>\n

\n

The Catholic perspective on OCD constitutes a vast literature which has remained untapped by mainstream psychiatry. The Catholic concept of scrupulosity dates back at least to the twelfth century. It is derived from the Latin scrupus<\/em>, whose diminutive form scrupulus<\/em> means a small sharp stone. The neutral form, scrupulum<\/em>, means the smallest division of weight, the twenty-fourth part of an ounce. A minute weight could tip the scales of a sensitive balance: the scales of conscience.<\/p>\n

Scrupulosity, in the New Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em> (1967) signifies \u201chabitual and unreasonable hesitation or doubt, coupled with anxiety of the mind, in connection with the making of moral judgments.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Rapoport volume is, I believe, the founding text of the study of OCD, and contains anecdotal “cases” of various sorts.\u00a0 In 1989 there was little understanding of the condition.\u00a0 Much of what Rapoport suggests has simply been repeated word-for-word in later publications.<\/p>\n

There is often a tendency for unbelievers studying mental illness to conflate normal religious experience with mental illness.\u00a0 This does not always happen by accident.\u00a0 Those of my own generation remember how the old Soviet Union used to confine believers in mental hospitals, and subject them to “treatment” in order to “cure” them.\u00a0 It has been many years since I have heard mention of this charming practice, but then so much of the past that I remember has disappeared, or been disappeared, in the last 30 years.\u00a0 The Rapoport volume seems to strive to avoid this, which is perhaps one reason why it received wide acceptance.<\/p>\n

It took me some searching and a happy accident to discover that the first edition of the New Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em> (1967) is actually accessible on Archive.org, although only in “borrowable” form.\u00a0 The article on “Scrupulosity” appears in volume 12, p.1253 f.\u00a0 It is, in fact, the last article in the book.\u00a0 Unfortunately it is vague and useless.\u00a0 It does not refer to the “12th century” claim.\u00a0 Bootleg copies of the second edition (2002) are readily accessible on the web, but the article is no better.<\/p>\n

It is therefore impossible to say from where Rapoport drew her statement.<\/p>\n

The word “scrupulositas” itself is ancient.\u00a0 The Logeion site here<\/a> shows usage by Columella, Tertullian, and Jerome.\u00a0 Indeed I find that it appears in Bernard’s\u00a0Letters<\/em>, Letter 101 (PL 182, col.236).\u00a0 A translation from the PL text may be found in the old Life and Works of Saint Bernard<\/em>, vol. 1 (1893), p.342-3 online here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

I’ll give the relevant bit of Latin, and the whole of letter 101.<\/p>\n

\n

Fratrem Lambertum, quem in aliquibus forte fluctuantem suscepimus, orantibus quidem vobis pro ipso constantem remisimus, et nulla jam, ut opinamur, scrupulositate pristina laborantem. …<\/p>\n

101.\u00a0 Bernard asks that a monk who had departed without permission should be received with kindness.<\/em><\/p>\n

I send back to you Brother Lambert, whom I received, in some respects wavering in mind, but to whom your prayers have restored calm, so that he is not, as I think, labouring any more under his former scrupulosity. I have carefully questioned him about the cause of his coming, and also about the reason and manner of his departure. He does not seem to me to have had any bad intention in acting as he has done ; but his reason for leaving in such a manner, that is, without permission, was plainly insufficient. I took occasion from this to blame him as he deserved, to chide him sharply, to remove his hesitations and doubts, and to persuade him to return to you. Now that he is returning, I entreat you, my very dear brethren, to receive him kindly, and to be indulgent to the presumption of a brother in which there is more simplicity than malice, since he turned neither to the right nor left, but came straight to me, whom he knew for certain to be the devoted servant of your Holiness, a very sincere lover and faithful imitator of your piety. Receive him, therefore, you who are spiritual men, in a spirit of gentleness ; let your charity be confirmed towards him, and let his good intention excuse his bad action. Therefore, receive him back with joy, whom, when lost, you grieved for; and let gladness at the return of your brother speedily chase away the grief caused by his transgression and departure. I trust that, by the mercy of God, all the bitterness which his irregular departure occasioned will be soon softened by this improvement in his life.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

But there is nothing in this letter indicative of anything like the modern OCD-like condition.\u00a0 But I am slightly reminded of the twitter thread with which we started: “Another one has gone over the wall!!! Call out the dogs!”\u00a0 We do not learn what the poor monks’ scruples were.<\/p>\n

At this point a search in the Corpus Corporum site<\/a> gave a proper lead: to Hugutius Pisanus,\u00a0Derivationes<\/em>, written in 1190.\u00a0 We could perhaps call him some version of Hugh, or Huguccio, or Uguccio of Pisa. The text is a dictionary of Latin terms.<\/p>\n

He starts with scrupus<\/em>, “a small sharp stone”, also called scrupulus<\/em>.\u00a0 And by similarity these are called “molestia, sollicitudo, anxietas et dubietas animi, difficultas, subtilis questio”.\u00a0 From\u00a0scrupus<\/em> he gets\u00a0scrupeus -a -um<\/em>, and\u00a0scruposus -a -um<\/em>, full of scruple, and thus scrupulositas, and promptly quotes Plautus (!).\u00a0 From\u00a0scrupulus\u00a0<\/em>he gets the verb\u00a0scrupulo -as<\/em>, the adjective\u00a0scrupulosus -a -um<\/em>, from which\u00a0scrupulositas<\/em>, anxiety, difficulty, etc.\u00a0 Here’s the Corpus Corporum text, from the SISMEL text (ed. Cecchini, 2 vols, 2004) p.272:<\/p>\n

\n

Et a scrupus scrupeus -a -um et scruposus -a -um, idest scrupis plenus et abundans vel asper, difficilis, nodosus, obscurus, et comparatur; unde hec scrupositas; Plautus in Captivis<\/em> \u2018nec meus scruposam victus commeat viam\u2019.<\/p>\n

Item a scrupulus scrupulo -as, idest sollicitare, molestare, et scrupulosus -a -um, scrupulis plenus vel asper, anxius, dubius, difficilis, nodosus, obscurus, et comparatur; unde hec scrupulositas, anxietas, difficultas et cetera.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This 12th century text, perhaps, lies behind whatever source Rapoport was looking at – which clearly had some Latin grammatical element -, and thus is still reflected in all those who copied her.<\/p>\n

Whether scrupulosity is the right word for a form of OCD may reasonably be doubted, however.\u00a0 It seems to have a broader, less obsessive context.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I learned a word this week.\u00a0 The word is “scrupulosity”, meaning a self-tormenting and obsessive worry about committing minor sins.\u00a0 I learned of it from a twitter thread here, where some devout Roman Catholics were discussing some less than ideal behaviour by religious orders: @jdflynn: When I was in college, I knew a lot of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_hide_featured_image":false,"_jetpack_featured_image_duplicate_dismissed":0,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-32877","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-from-my-diary-announcements"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32877","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=32877"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32877\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32877"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32877"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/roger-pearse.com\/weblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32877"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}