Skip to main content

Scrupulosity: The Enemy Within

Scrupulosity is an excessive fear of having offended God, or the belief that what I have done renders me beyond God's mercy. Believe it or not, I have struggled with this. It's a species of pride.

Last night, as I was contemplating the superabundance of God in various blessings--and noting ruefully that there must be some mistake--something just clicked. "Where do I get off, telling Jesus he made a mistake?" You see, my friends, Jesus didn't wait until any of us were "acceptably spiritual." Indeed, what does the Scripture say? "God shows his own love for us in this: that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Think about that, now. Are we trying to tell Jesus he doesn't know what he's gotten himself into? On the face of it, it's absurd.

Do you think someone who hasn't received Confession in 40 years may have some shame?

And that's another thing: All these ex-Catholics out there proclaiming the "good news" of once-for-all justification and forgiveness, what are you supposed to do when the thing you keep doing is eating you up inside? The one thing you know for sure is that you don't love Him as much as he loves you. But Christ, the ever-willing Victim, never has and never will change his mind about how far he's willing to go for you and me. Therefore, every failure honestly confessed is an honest plea: "Help me to understand the depth of Your love for me!" And then hope becomes pointed and sharp like Jacob: "I won't let go, until you bless me!" We're not running on a sacramental treadmill of fear; we're in the presence of the Lord, staying with Him on the mountain, until we shine like the sun!


Comments

Anonymous said…
"Help me to understand the depth of Your love for me!"

That's a plea I constantly make. The more I try to understand God, the more befuddling and confounding he is. I think God is the ultimate, most complex lover a person can have, regardless of one's state in life. One minute lavishing so much love and a minute later playing hard to get. It's both exhilarating and perplexing at the same time.

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un