Catholic Answers on Martin Luther's Scrupulosity

"Martin Luther probably had scrupulosity (religious OCD)." So claims one of the many online voices putting their opinion into cyberspace. When I congratulated this person on their ability to diagnose the mental state of someone living five hundred years ago, the response was: "I encourage you to do the research. (Hint: you will see this is a prominent theory)." True, it's been repeated enough that it is prominent, to the point that even Google spits it out haphazardly. But is it true? Those most willing to say "yes" are... defenders of Roman Catholicism.

Scrupulosity is used by Roman Catholics to point out Martin Luther had negative and debilitating psychological problems. When they use the term scrupulosity to describe Martin Luther, they are not intending to have pity on him or demonstrate mercy and kindness. They're saying that the entire Reformation was based on someone with a debilitating mental disorder; that the Gospel proclaimed by the early Reformers was primarily the result of one man's psychosis. Luther started the Reformation, subsequent generations of Protestants have followed the theological ravings of someone mentally unstable.

Consider the following hit piece from Catholic Answers: The Scruples of Luther and Thérèse, Only one of these two famous figures overcame scrupulosity and crippling fear of God in a healthy way:

In the Church’s long history, two figures stand out. Both were obsessed with their sins, terrified of divine justice, and doubtful that they could ever earn God’s love. But their paths diverged profoundly: one threw the Church into turmoil and brought devastation to the whole world, while the other attained eternal glory as one of the Church’s beloved and revered saints and Doctors.

According to Catholic Answers, Thérèse "prayerfully discerned with the help of her sisters and her spiritual director that she didn’t need to earn God’s love. Rather, God loved her already." 

According to Catholic Answers for Luther, "having a temptation was sinful. This anxiety is what Catholic moral theologians call scrupulosity and what psychologists call obsessive-compulsive disorder...  faith, and faith alone, was the way to achieve eternal life. Therefore, he did not need to continue with his sacrifices, fasts, and other rigorous works." 

Catholic Answers concludes,

What a stark difference there is between these two figures! Luther was dominated by fear, and he left the Faith. Thérèse wanted only to please her loving Father—and her gentle love and understanding of God ensured her a place of honor in heaven, the Church, and history.

So declares the North American magisterium Catholic Answers, infallible interpreter of history (read: sarcasm). Their charge of scrupulosity / obsessive-compulsive disorder is a blatant attempt to denigrate Martin Luther and the Reformation. In their perspective, it simply couldn't be the case that the sixteenth century Roman Catholic Church was riddled with corruption, the allegedly infallible papacy was undeniably and ostensively fallible, and they squelched the Gospel by heaping a massive amount of unbiblical tradition upon it. In their thinking, there's no possible way the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ is biblically correct and is the only antidote to a deep realization of sin in light of a Holy God. There must be some other reason that the Reformation happened! Ah... it was because Martin Luther had mental problems! He abandoned doing the necessary works ("sacrifices, fasts, and other rigorous works") to overcome scrupulosity... like Thérèse did! She discovered a "loving father," while Luther "brought devastation to the whole world." 

No, that isn't it.  Consider what Catholic Answers is arguing: having a deep awareness of personal sin and the existence of a Holy God is abnormal behavior... a disorder for some people. Who decides the difference between Thérèse and Luther? Why... Catholic Answers does!

Ironically, they argue Luther had debilitating mental problems, but they also assume as normal their own history of such bizarre extreme practices under the mortification of the flesh. Many of their own clergy were so convicted by sin they inflicted intense pain on themselves... that's completely normal in Roman Catholicism (read: sarcasm)! One popular interpreter of Roman Catholicism even defended Pope John Paul II for whipping himself and wearing a hair shirt. Why... that's just normal positive spiritual behavior (read: sarcasm)! I suspect that if their own children were purposely hurting themselves, they would seek out psychological medical help. In fact, a simple Google search for "is harming oneself a psychological disorder?" provides a myriad of hits to the mental disorder of harming oneself. The point: If secular psychology is the standard Rome's defenders want to use on the Reformation, fairness and integrity demand they apply the same standard to their own worldview. It's fundamentally flawed to argue with a standard one will not apply to their own worldview.

Conclusion
If you come upon Roman Catholics using the Martin Luther-had-mental-problems argument:

First: Realize their underlying point is that the Reformation was primarily provoked by mental illness. You should find this insulting, to yourself, to the memory of Martin Luther, to the church (the body of Christ), and more importantly, to the Gospel; Rome's defenders are ultimately obnoxiously and maliciously denying the Gospel. 

Second: Ask Rome's defenders who defines the standards being used. Where in their infallible sources does the magisterium declare Luther had a mental illness?  The Roman magisterium has never made any such infallible declaration. Rome's defenders are using their own fallible private interpretation. The overwhelming majority of Rome's obnoxious online defenders have no actual authority in the Roman Catholic Church, nor are they credentialed psychologists.

Third: Ask them how it's possible to do a psychological evaluation on someone that's been dead for hundreds of years. Ask: why are you using secular methodology? Rome's defenders are unknowingly using the flawed secular model of psychohistory.  This model posits history can be understood by applying the science of psychology to a historical figure. This secular method holds that history is more than simply facts. ¾ are also the result of psychological forces that drive people to do what they do. The basic problem with this approach is that each psychohistorian discovers what one needs in order to validate his particular study. 

Explain to Rome's defenders they are also violating current secular psychological APA standards. Those standards now strongly say proper diagnosis is most beneficial from in-person contact (APA 9.01b). This article states:

Using a record as the sole basis for a diagnosis is a more static process. There may be limited ability to assess the quality of the data in the record and no opportunity to explore aspects of the record that are ambiguous or incomplete. If psychological testing is part of the record, there may be little evidence concerning whether the testing was done under standardized conditions and can be relied upon in making the diagnosis. A diagnostic process based solely on a record review thus potentially presents significant limitations.

While each clause in Standard 9.01 offers concrete guidance to psychologists making diagnoses from whatever source, clause (b), which addresses situations "in which an examination is not practical," speaks directly to the limitations inherent in record reviews. Under clause (b), psychologists clarify the probable impact of their limited information and appropriately limit their conclusions. Psychologists rendering diagnostic opinions solely on the basis of a record review therefore think through and make explicit how the absence of an examination affects their conclusions--and limit their diagnostic statements accordingly. Note how, through its limiting language, clause (b) emphasizes the centrality of an examination in the diagnostic process.

-snip-

The Ethics Code exhorts psychologists to use their influence to do good and to avoid harm. Standard 9.01, Bases for Assessments, gives specific guidance for psychologists rendering diagnostic opinions, an area of practice where our profession's influence is most keenly felt. Offering a diagnosis based solely on a record review raises special considerations and unique challenges with great ethical significance. The spirit of the Code, embodied in the language of Standard 9.01, focuses on the quality of the data and processes we use to render judgments that affect the lives of others.