CathInfo.com

Why didn't you reply to wearing tighter clothing?

So, the fact that you asked this question, even though I did address the question of wearing tighter clothing ... confirms the diagnosis of scrupulosity.  That's a red-siren indicator of scruples, where you keep asking the question even after it's been answered, since the very definition of scrupulosity entails the inability to come to a definitive practical judgment about a matter, so the mind cannot rest with making a decision and just going with it, where you're always questioning your own judgment, but this also manifests itself in questioning the judgments of others, and the fact that you didn't "see" in my response that I had in fact answered this question confirms the diagnosis of scruplosity.

Now, I know about scruples, since I had been afflicted with it for some years, but my spiritual director at STAS cured me instantly of it, by simply commanding me to never confess anything (or refrain from Holy Communion as a result) unless I could basically swear to him that I had committed mortal sin.  He said that even if I were mistaken, God would not judge me for it, but that it would be on him.  Given the fact that I considered disobedience worse than these struggles, this was an instant cure for me.  Never had another problem with scruples again.  And, once cured thusly, I was able over time to develop the proper more balanced perspective regarding sin, so now I fully understand what I did not at the time, the distinction between some motion of the lower faculties and an act of the will.  I was able to see this clearly after the fog of scruples had been lifted.

That's one root cause of scrupulosity ... where our lower faculties often can engage in a certain amount of movement that can resemble "consent", where the mind (not the intellect, but the mind ... a hard concept to get hold of if you haven't studied scholastic philosophy), the mind "grasps" the thoughts, but that's just because, it's what the mind does, and the mind might even engage in recursive consideration of said thoughts ... and this might leave an individual with the impression of having grasped onto the thought with the will.  But it's a false impression.

So, one way to discern is to let the fog settle for a bit.  Once you realize what's going on, fight off the thought.  Then wait some time, perhaps 15 minutes, after the thoughts have cleared out.  At that point, ask yourself, now that the perception of what was going on had passed, ask yourself after the thoughts had passed, whether you consented to the thought.  With these situations, most of the time you won't even remember the thoughts themselves, or if you did, will clearly realize, "no, I did not consent".  In this way, you can "shake off" the impression in your mind at the time they were occurring.  If you don't shake that off and reconsider it a short time later, then you'll only remember that during the fog or heat of the battle a judgment you had made that you may have consented.  But if you want for things to settle a bit before making the final judgment, it'll become much clearer to you.

Now, this applies of course only to the scrupulous.  Lax people should not act on similar criteria, but it's clear that you are not lax given that you're struggling with the problem.  Lax people might want to grasp onto these principles to give themselves even more slack, but they would do so without hesitation, taking advantage of whatever they can.  But their judgment regarding whether they had consented is impaired in the other direction.  Of course, the problem is that scrupulous people might even start questioning ... whether they might not in fact be lax rather than scruplous.  If you're asking that question and bothered by the thought of being wrong about that judgment, you're not lax.  Lax people are rarely going to be "troubled" by such judgments.

If you are distressed by the thought of being mistaken and then go back and forth about whether or not you might be, in a state of distress, you're scruplous, not lax.

Finally, another consideration about scruples is that there's a certainly amount of selfishness or self-absorption behind it, where the scrupulous are more worried about offending God with regard to the impact it has on THEM, and THEIR souls, rather than the harm it would do to God's glory and the sorrow it causes to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.  There's some element of self-absorption involved.  That can become evident if after an individual falls into sin, then they start committing more and more sin because, well, they're already in a state of mortal sin, so they throw up their hands and stop caring.  That's a very strong indicator of a selfish motivation behind not wanting to sin.  If they cared about the offense to God, then they wouldn't just slide into sinning with reckless abandon after having committed the first one, since the offense to God would be no different.