A study discussed in an article in New Scientist raises the possibility of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder being linked to piety. More devout Catholics reported more severe symptoms of OCD, raising the question of whether religious devotion early in life causes OCD symptoms or people with those character traits feel more drawn to a religious lifestyle and devote themselves to God. So what do you think, is it the religious upbringing, a genetic disposition, a combination of both, or is the study complete hooey?
It’s worth noting that what is addressed is piety – how one lives out one’s relationship to God – not belief. And yes, while my first reaction would be one of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, I think that how a believer conceives of what he or she must do apropos what God’s Will might be, and in particular the idea of careful attention to the avoidance of specific sins, probably does have a fairly strong correlation to OCD.
That’s pure speculation on my part, but based on decades of observation of Christian behavior patterns, so I’d offer it as strong anecdotal evidence seeming to support the hypothesis.
Ancedote:
I have been diagnosed with OCD. I am an agostic. However, when I was Catholic, I was a pretty pious Catholic. There are a lot of rituals in Catholism (the rosary, stations, mass) that feed a need in someone with OCD.
If your compulsion is dirt - you may engage in ritual hand washing. If your compulsion is sin, you may engage in ritual religion. Someone with OCD may have multiple compulsions. And I think that what your compulsion turns out to be has a lot to do with your upbringing and experience.
I think its a leap to say that religious upbringing causes OCD. I think its more likely to say the the rituals of Catholism (or another religion) appeal to someone with OCD.
The blurb mentions what I would guess is going on - that the causality is the other way around. Perhaps the real study deals with it, but the methodology outlined doesn’t sound like it does.
The reverse story is pretty simple: Many are brought up strict Catholics, those with OCD are more likely to stay because they get something out of it that others don’t.
It is certainly an untrue generalization that religious upbringing causes OCD; however, it does seem reasonable that the roots of OCD are in childhood, and performing rigorous rituals in order to gain praise or avoid punishment can become a habitual response, leading to OCD which is sometimes manifested in religious ritual and sometimes other rituals, but the origin of the habitual response is still the religious ritual in childhood. The origin of the disorder could be any ritual performed in childhood, religious or not, which resulted in reward or punishment, which reinforced the behavior. So it would appear reasonable that sometimes an excessively devout upbringing can result in OCD where that OCD would not have occurred were it not for the habitual response learned in childhood.
OCD has a physiological cause, and has even been linked to untreated strep in children. Dangerosa has it right…OCD would be present in the individual regardless of religiosity. If the person with OCD happened to be religious, the OCD would fuel the scrupulosity–which is the recognized term for OCD focused on piety. Martin Luther was a sufferer of scrupulosity and had to be disciplined by his church elders for compulsive confession.
I can see how the rituals involved with the Catholic religion, and particularly confession, would be fed by an untreated case of OCD.
For the record, both of my children as well as I have OCD. We are not religious. Our OCD is fed by obsessions with cleanliness, order, and symmetry(daughter 2), fear of death and violence and (daughter 1), and safety/checking behaviors(me). If we were Catholic, I quite imagine we would be compulsive confessers.
Calliope, while I sympathize with your family, and I certainly mean no disrespect, if you are saying OCD is solely caused by physiological factors, do you have any evidence for this? I read this article about children whose symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder *and tic disorders *were worsened by strep and were successfully treated by plasma exchange and intravenous immunoglobin. The same article, however, goes on to say
The researchers did not claim that strep was the cause of the OCD, only that it made it worse.
If a disease is solely genetic or physiological, as some say about depression, that it is caused solely by decreased serotonin reuptake, it should be curable with solely medical-physiological means, such as with an SSRI. But evidence has shown that depression, OCD and other disorders are most successfully treated by a combination of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and medications. The efficacy of CBT and the inefficacy of medications alone would seem to indicate a non-physiological component of these disorders.
Now I am going to contradict and debate myself because I have done some more research and thinking about this. As discussed here, neuroimaging studies suggest abnormalities in neurologic circuits of persons with OCD; also, the successful treatment with SSRIs has led to a neuropsychiatric explanation of a serotonin-mediated “grooming behavior” that has been disrupted; also, genetic studies demonstrate that OCD and Tourette’s may represent expressions of the same gene. Rather than indicating a non-physiological cause, CBT may actually reinforce the neurologic theory because the abnormal neurologic circuits physically change with CBT (as well as with medications). Perhaps CBT only provides the patient with skills to master the obsessive thoughts and compulsive behaviors which are caused only by neurological defects.
I can’t find any support for it, but my gut just tells me that the origins of these disorders are not strictly physiological. Yes, it seems there is a strong physiological component, but as with the nature/nurture argument, there must be some middle ground, a combination of physiological and psychological causes. And thus I can’t see why a person with a physiological disposition to a disorder can’t be “tipped over the edge” by environmental factors (such as rigorous piety), nor why a person with a particular gene is *necessarily * doomed to suffer an illness.
I have suffered from depression and have benefited from a combination of medications and CBT. I can state that the CBT did me much more good than the meds. I have seen studies where CBT alone beat out meds alone in treating depression. It just seems too easy, and irresponsible, to say, “Well, I have a genetic quirk which does not allow the proper reuptake of serotonin, and therefore I will suffer depression without proper medication, and my children will probably suffer depression, too.”
I believe (again, no proof, just guts) that the physiological-only explanation of neuropsychiatric disorders is a cop-out, allowing people to not take responsibility for their own feelings and actions and for their kids’ feelings and actions. It’s like the thing with ADD; suddenly in the recent past there are all these kids being diagnosed with ADD. It’s a helluva lot easier to medicate your child than to take some responsibility in disciplining the child and teaching him the right way to behave, study, act, etc. It’s also easier to just pop a pill and not take responsibility for modifying your own behaviors through non-medical means. Lastly, and I can feel the heat already, is it possible that these psychiatric diseases that “run in families,” alcoholism, depression,
OCD, etc., “run in the family” not because of genetics but because of learned behavior? Pointing to a shared gene among family members as the cause of a psychiatric disorder seems inane. Of course families are going to share genes, that’s why they’re family. Just because Little Joe grew up to be an alcoholic like Big Joe doesn’t mean that their shared genes were the cause. I believe Little Joe learned the behavior from Big Joe, and maybe some genetic predisposition helped it along, but Little Joe became an alcoholic due to psychological and environmental factors, and only psychological and environmental changes would have saved his life, if only he had wanted it so.
I’m also a genetic linked depressive - circumstances can kick it off, but CBT has traditionally been pretty useless to me. Drugs, however, work wonders. And it isn’t learned behavior - my mom doesn’t have it, and I never really knew my grandmother that did (she committed suicide when I was two). (I have an aunt who has it, but I grew up in a different part of the country than her).
And psychiatric disorders like alcoholism and depression will show up in an adoptive child when his birthparent(s) have the disorder, but his adoptive family doesn’t.
And non-genetic does not mean non-physiological. Strep would be non-genetic, but would be physiological.
Personally, I’m with you though, OCD is probably a combination of factors - genetic, non-genetic physiological, and “nurture.” And probably at different levels in different people. Some people - all genetic — some people - all circumstance. But I think that the cart is before the horse on the religious thing.
Well I’ll be the first to say I don’t know everything about OCD and Tourette’s, though I live with both disorders. I think the research you’ve done supports most of what I believe through my own experience to be true. I am a big believer in CBT for treatment of OCD, by the way. In TS, it would be useless, as it is not behavior, but motor and vocal tics we’re talking about.
I do know, though, that both of my children developed symptoms of OCD before they were old enough to think about them. I also know that I did not encourage the symptoms through my parenting. I find it oddly interesting that all of us have a different flavor, if you will, of OCD. My OCD “issues” are not my children’s OCD issues.
The brain is a complex organ, to be sure. I will not definitively state that environment plays no part in the development of symptoms, but I firmly believe that the physiological predisposition must be present in the individual for symptoms to develop. That is why I said that religiosity does not cause OCD. But religiosity can certainly manifest particular symptoms, and in fact reinforce them, in an individual with OCD. In other words, environmental influences can affect how the symptoms are displayed.
I have learned OCD is a selfish master. If you give it any part of your life, it takes more and more. An inability to be “sure” about things and a need for reassurance are at the heart of most symptoms, be they germ related or scruples. A set of “rules” as defined by the church would fit right into an OCD life.
Calliope, thanks for setting me straight in a most gentle and lovely way. I realize I will have to rethink some of my attitudes. I let my own experiences explain everyone else’s. Not very scientific, taking a .00001% sampling and creating Grand Theories.
I understand the need for reassurance and “rules.”
Thank you also for sharing a very private thing.
Huh. I have ADHD, OCD…and I’m Catholic.
