The consequences of spiritual abuse are severe. It can lead to diminished self-confidence, addiction, decreased trust, depression, anxiety, and even shake a person’s faith in God. Testimonies from those affected reveal the profound negative impact this abuse can have on their entire lives.
Dr. sc. Rebeka Anić is a scientific advisor at the Ivo Pilar Institute of Social Sciences – Regional Center Split. As an external associate, she has taught at the universities of Zadar, Zagreb, Split, and Sarajevo. In 2017, she received an award from the Herbert Haag Stiftung for Freiheit in der Kirche of Switzerland for her research into the anti-gender movement within the Church. Her published works include More than Expected: Women in the Church in Croatia in the 20th Century (2003), How to Understand Gender: The History of the Debate and Different Understandings in the Church (2011), and Mary Magdalene: From Jesus’ Disciple to the Movie Harlot (co-authored with Irena Sever Globan, 2018). Dr. Anić was interviewed by Marko Medved at the Mediterranean Theological Meetings in Lovran for Polis.ba.
Marko Medved:
Dear Dr. Rebeka, you discussed sectarian deviations in new spiritual communities. You referred to how the Church globally has faced these issues, initially with denial and later seeking solutions. Are we truly aware of the extent of this problem?
Sr. Rebeka Anić:
My lecture was based on research and theological discussions about sectarian deviations and abuses in new spiritual communities in France and Germany. These communities are primarily charismatic and have been recognized by the Church. I emphasized the need to interpret structural violence and its connection to personal violence, a topic often overlooked within our own Church. Recent public discussions about abuses in the Catholic Church in Croatia show that our focus remains on violent acts, their frequency, and the number of perpetrators. We hesitate to acknowledge that these abuses are supported by structures that enable and perpetuate violence, fearing that reform might be equated with the dismantling of the Church.
For example, the first article in the German-speaking world, in which moral theologian Konrad Hilpert asks whether sexual abuse is a systemic problem, was published in 2010. Today, this is generally accepted, and efforts are being made to address this issue at both the church and theological levels. My lecture aimed to help students recognize sectarian deviations and spiritual abuse to prevent them from becoming victims. It also encouraged them to analyze our social and church environment, the needs of young people and believers, and how the Church addresses these needs, including the risks of sectarian alienation and violence.
In our country, I cannot refer to specific research on deviations. There is some doubt about the sectarian nature of certain communities here. Based on available information and the texts of those who founded and lead them, these communities resemble those in France and Germany that faced legal action. For example, a community leader claiming divine messages directs individuals on various personal matters, such as becoming priests/monks/nuns or confessing to specific priests, that is, undergo an exorcism. Such phenomena should be dealt with by the church hierarchy. Such individuals take on the role of God in someone’s life, speaking with the authority of God and saints, and dangerously assume control over someone’s life. They are dangerous for all people who turn to them, especially for those who are at a crossroads, in a difficult life situation, seeking guidance, or are vulnerable for any reason. Such persons present themselves as spiritual “fathers” or spiritual “mothers”, as spiritual leaders. They do not realize that one should not be a spiritual ‘leader’ but a follower, and that the role of a follower is not to decide for the person being followed. Rather, it is to assist the person in making their own decision, which they believe is right for themselves, without depriving them of the challenge of their own freedom. There are also some communities in Croatia that have been banned by bishops in other European countries. Whether our bishops are aware of this or not, whether they are following it or not, I am not sure. The bishops’ task is to conduct an investigation and examine whether the doubts are justified or what the status is of communities that are established outside Croatia. The experiences of bishops from other countries can be helpful, as they reveal where the hierarchy has erred when investigating the suspected communities. Here, it is worth noting briefly that it is not only important to check statutes and rules but also the way of life, and that an interdisciplinary approach is crucial in the investigation. It is necessary to provide a space where members of the community can speak freely. It is also important to involve experts in the conversation which can help them overcome their fear and reluctance to betray their “family.” It is especially important to include experts from religious orders, as they have experience in religious life and can more easily identify possible deviations.
Marko Medved:
According to your observations, can sectarian deviations also occur in spiritual communities recognized by the Church?
Sr. Rebeka Anić:
Church recognition has not proven to be a reliable criterion for assessing whether something can be considered sectarian deviations or not. Spiritual abuse points to sectarian deviations in church institutions, and unfortunately, it is not limited to new spiritual communities but also appears in established monastic communities. It is therefore important to recognize it.
There are also some communities in Croatia that have been banned by bishops in other European countries. Whether our bishops are aware of this or not, whether they are following it or not, I am not sure. The bishops’ task is to conduct an investigation and examine whether the doubts are justified or what the status is of communities that are established outside Croatia. The experiences of bishops from other countries can be helpful, as they reveal where the hierarchy has erred when investigating the suspected communities. Sister Rebeka talks with Marko Medved, photo: polis.ba
Marko Medved:
Could you explain what spiritual abuse is and how to identify it?
Just like with psychological abuse, spiritual abuse also typically arises from a closed system, an idea around which people gather, which unites them and for which they fight, dependence on authority, or a hierarchy where someone holds more power than others. The peculiarity of spiritual abuse is that it uses faith, religious teachings and values in the framework of asymmetrical relationships in order to manipulate, exploit or oppress trusted persons. The abuser, typically a person in a position of power within the religious community, establishes control over others’ consciousness subtly, often following a “boiled frog” principle. This is evidenced by four mutually inextricably linked characteristics of spiritual abuse that are known from the research of sects and were also found in the analysis of new spiritual communities. It is about violating boundaries, limiting, idealizing and devaluing.
Boundary violation refers to the mixing of forum internum and forum externum within a community. Canon law stipulates that these two realms should be separate, meaning that the same person cannot serve as the community leader, spiritual director, and/or confessor. This separation aims to ensure that individuals can open up to their spiritual director without fear that it will affect decisions related to the forum externum, specifically leadership. Boundary violation also pertains to restricting psychological and spiritual support solely to members of one’s own community; to violations of privacy, intrusion into someone’s personal life, and influencing their decisions.
Restriction refers to a subtle process of indoctrination in which a community member is subtly guided toward certain behaviors if they wish to be accepted. This restriction includes: limiting contacts, both within the community and with people outside it (such as family and friends), restricting the books that can be read, controlling access to information from the outside world. Contacts with outsiders are restricted on the grounds that their attitudes and worldviews do not align with the community’s specific ethos and could negatively impact the individual and their vocation. The restriction often extends to promoting a particular direction of spirituality, which is presented as the “best path” to holiness. Additionally, there is a requirement for secrecy and silence regarding community life, justified by the claim that such a lifestyle could be “misunderstood.”The practice of eavesdropping and monitoring correspondence by the leadership or other members is also common. Over time, this creates a pervasive system of control in which everyone feels they are being watched by everyone else. As a result, members often adopt conformist behaviors in line with the rules to avoid attracting negative attention. This behavior is further influenced by the community’s jargon, which clearly defines what behaviors are considered positive or negative.
Idealization refers primarily to the behavior of the founder, and indirectly to the self-understanding of the community. This term expresses the behavior in which the founders of the community present themselves as God’s spokespersons or as representatives of the saints. They bolster their authority with accounts of a dramatic conversion and divine calling, often citing a mystical experience in which they were told by a visionary that God wanted them to establish the community. They are surrounded by a kind of “divine aura,” and their words are regarded as divine inspiration and considered “law.” To members or prospective members of the community, they convey messages from God and the saints concerning their lives and decisions. Questioning the founder’s teachings or actions is prohibited and interpreted as resistance to the Holy Spirit.
Members of such communities believe they are part of a higher mission, focused on saving souls and evangelization. This mission is considered more important than their personal needs and interests. Leaving the community is seen as opposing God’s will, losing “true” faith, or as an act of betrayal. Additionally, the lofty ideals foster a sense of superiority among community members, which strengthens their unity. The community is also likened to a family, and this family metaphor is used to justify the power imbalances within. Certain information is reserved for the “parents” or responsible leaders, while the “children” or general members are not expected to know all details or be involved in every decision. Mistakes and guilt are often assigned to the “children,” whereas truth and justice are attributed to the “parents.” Members are also expected to keep “family secrets.”
Those who dare to resist the founder and leaders of the community often face devaluation and humiliation. This is frequently done in subtle ways, such as suggesting that a person must rid themselves of their inner flaws to achieve salvation, and that they should distrust their own thoughts, feelings, and needs. One’s own will is examined only to be deemed undesirable, rejected, and subjected to a system of obedience. Sometimes, a “hot-cold” technique is employed, where the person is either praised or reprimanded depending on the leader’s mood. This inconsistency causes confusion and insecurity, as the individual struggles to understand the reasons behind the leader’s varying behavior. Spiritual abusers may interpret this devaluation as a favor, believing they are helping their victims become humble. Denigration can also occur publicly, in the form of a “public confession” before the entire group.
The consequences of spiritual abuse are severe. It can lead to diminished self-confidence, increased dependence, reduced ability to trust, depression, anxiety, and a shaken faith in God. The testimonies of those affected are often shocking and reveal the profound negative impact such abuse can have on their entire lives.
The growth and development of new communities that emerged partly from the charismatic renewal were seen as the Spirit’s response to the crisis faced by the Church. However, this also led to various problems. In your opinion, what are the main criteria for evaluating new spiritual communities?
Cèline Hoyeau, in her book *La Trahison des Pères* (The Betrayal of the Fathers) (2021), examines the socio-ecclesiastical context in France and within the Catholic Church following the Second World War and the Second Vatican Council. These events facilitated the growth of new spiritual communities while also affecting the hierarchy’s relationship with them. Hoyeau identifies the issues faced by the Church hierarchy, the needs of the youth of that era, and the ways in which the founders of new spiritual communities addressed these needs. According to her analysis, the period was marked by secularization, a critical attitude towards institutions, a search for strong personalities (such as teachers) and Eastern spirituality (such as gurus), and a weakening of authority based on service. This was a reaction to the rationalism and faith in progress prevalent in the 1950s and 1960s, which also created a desire for shared emotional experiences. The Church experienced a crisis following the Second Vatican Council: priests, monks, and nuns were leaving their vocations; the number of seminarians and theologians was declining; and attendance at services was decreasing. The hierarchy sought new models of pastoral care outside traditional parish communities. Believers began to yearn for a clearer presentation of faith, a sense of God’s closeness, a more “sacred” liturgy, and felt that the Church’s involvement in social issues was not sufficient. They missed religious symbols in public spaces, such as prayer benches, statues of saints in churches, and processions. Contemporaries described this period as “the ruin of Christianity,” “post-Christian times,” “the Catholic crisis,” or “the end of a world.
” In this atmosphere, the founders emerge, giving the impression that they can reverse the current trajectory. They present themselves to believers as an alternative to both traditionalists and progressives within the Church. They position themselves as guarantors of orthodoxy against progressive Catholicism and as defenders of the Magisterium at a time when the Pope’s authority is being undermined. To young people seeking mentors, father figures, and leaders, they offer security and a sense of the “absolute” and the “secret.” Their piety encompasses the body, emotions, affectivity, tenderness, and acceptance of one’s own vulnerability. These communities appear as “oases” where the individuality of each person is recognized, thereby addressing the need for togetherness that has arisen from the decline of traditional communal structures such as family and parish.
As a rule, sexual abuse did not occur as a physical attack involving significant force, but rather as a result of spiritual abuse. Over an extended period, individuals were gradually subjected to emotional dependence, manipulation, and seduction, rendering them paralyzed at the moment of sexual abuse and unable to defend themselves or make their own decisions. S. Rebeka and Loredana Fabijanić, photo: polis.ba
The first accusations and convictions surfaced as early as 1956, but they remained confidential, known only to community leaders. Despite the growing public allegations of sectarian bias and sexual abuse, the hierarchy has shown leniency. The primary criterion for evaluating these communities is the number of new vocations, particularly priestly ones. Jesus’ words, “by their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:20), are interpreted to mean that “fruits” are reduced to the number of new, especially priestly, vocations. Cèline Hoyeau relays the comments of Cardinal Franco Rodé, the Prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life, regarding the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, Marcial Maciel. Although the Cardinal disapproves of Maciel’s “moral weaknesses,” he argues that due to the 1,000 priests the community had at the time, the “fruit is good, the fruit is extraordinarily good.” The Cardinal concludes, “He is extraordinary, great […]. Can it then be said that the tree is bad? […] Purely logically, I would say: No, I release him too, release Father Maciel!”
And some communities in Croatia justify themselves by the number of new (priestly) vocations. However, it should be said that the fruit is not good. Real statistics from other countries reveal a troubling number of young people who have left these communities with significant trauma. These negative outcomes are not typically accounted for. Hoyeau, therefore, warns that what we are seeing is not “real” fruit but rather “apparent” fruit. This reductionist approach to evaluating these communities inspired the title of my presentation: it’s not about good fruit, but about fruit that leaves a bad taste in your mouth.
You talk about sectarian deviations and spiritual abuse. Unfortunately, it is known that sexual abuse also happened in these communities. How do you interpret that?
Spiritual abuse does not necessarily lead to sexual abuse, but it facilitates it—or, as some authors describe it, acts as the “hallway” to sexual abuse. Founders of new spiritual communities have often been sanctioned for sexual abuse, but they typically became abusers after first establishing spiritual dominance over their victims. Generally, sexual abuse did not occur as a direct physical attack involving substantial force, but rather as a result of prolonged spiritual abuse. Over time, victims were gradually manipulated and emotionally dependent, making them unable to defend themselves or make independent decisions when the abuse occurred. Abusers often elicited their victims’ most intimate secrets during confession, coaxing them to reveal details that should not have been disclosed. One victim recounted how the founder of her community seemed to possess an almost supernatural insight into human suffering, leading her to disclose all her desires and needs. This information allowed him to identify her vulnerabilities, which he then exploited for sexual abuse. Additionally, these abusers framed their actions theologically, interpreting their kisses as those of Jesus and their relationship as a divine connection akin to that of Jesus and Mary, which they claimed no one else could comprehend. This rationalization included a concept known as “friendly love,” where sexual relations were justified under the guise of spiritual or mystical insight. Because the founders were viewed as mystics, their justifications often escaped rational critique. Any resistance to their actions was seen as a disruption of the healing process and interpreted as a lack of faith and trust. In such cases, it is more accurate to describe the behavior as sexualized rather than purely sexual violence. The acts in question are not merely physical assaults but are primarily driven by non-sexual motives expressed through sexual acts. This constitutes a distinct form of power abuse within hierarchical gender relations.
You addressed the issue of gender, specifically anti-gender attitudes within the Catholic milieu. How does, or does sectarian mentality emerge in relation to these issues within the Church?
Based on the Church’s attitude towards women and LGBTQ individuals, some authors argue that the Church is increasingly adopting a sectarian mentality. This is evident in its efforts to define itself as a “small flock,” where the term “small” does not refer to the number of believers, but to the notion that the “flock” excludes those whose existence promotes “comfortable traditionalism” or whose theological research leads to “boring pseudo-orthodoxy,” as noted by the respected theologian Tomislav Janko Šagi-Bunić.
One sign of a sect or an indicator of a sectarian mentality is when someone claims the right to determine the existence or non-existence of certain people. This doesn’t necessarily mean physical elimination but can involve reducing relationships to submission and exclusion. The underlying belief is that there is only one true way of living, one valid perspective on reality, and one absolute truth, while all other viewpoints are considered invalid, false, and harmful.
In the Catholic Church, the principle of equal dignity but different rights applies to women and LGBTQ+ individuals, resulting in their exclusion from full participation in the community. Equal rights are not denied based on specific (in)abilities, disabilities, or even the willingness to submit, but rather solely on the basis of physical gender and sexual orientation. Due to their physical characteristics and sexuality (even if non-practicing), these individuals are unable to be ordained and are thus excluded from significant roles within the Church. This creates a situation where there are two categories of members: those who possess full dignity and rights, and those who only have dignity but no rights. The latter category, which includes LGBTQ+ individuals, is perceived as less valuable and cannot advance to the first category regardless of their efforts. Even the submissive acceptance of imposed celibacy— which should never have been mandated in the first place—does not offer assistance to LGBTQ+ individuals. Celibacy must be a free choice, not an obligation.
In the marginalization of women and LGBTQI people, the church employs a hermeneutics of difference: it frames its positions in opposition to contemporary society and scientific research, while disregarding theological research that challenges these positions. When perspectives that do not align with one’s own preselected views are rejected outright, change becomes impossible. To prevent or at least slow down undesired changes, anything contrary to one’s own interests is labeled as ideology. Dialogue is limited to those who share the same views. This explains the persistent discourse around “gender ideology,” a term and concept primarily constructed by the Catholic Church.
Interviewed by: Marko Medved
Source: polis.ba
