The term “crystal generation” has become prevalent in contemporary discourse to designate young people as emotionally fragile. Although it is used colloquially, in institutional contexts it can be transformed into a tool for emotional control, a mechanism described in depth by studies of social psychology and sectarian dynamics (Singer, 2003; Lalich & Tobias, 2006; Hassan, 2018).
At the Institute of the Incarnate Word (IVE), this expression serves to exonerate the institution from responsibility for the psychological suffering of young members and to reinforce a system of vertical obedience, a dynamic widely documented in the literature on authoritarian organizations (Lifton, 1989; Barker, 1984).
1. The term “crystal generation”: stereotype and social function
The label arises from discourses that interpret generational changes in terms of emotional fragility. However, sociological and psychological studies argue that this perception responds more to a change in social norms than to greater real weakness (Twenge, 2017; Arnett, 2014).
According to research on young generations, the increase in the verbalization of emotions is explained by factors such as:
- increased access to mental health resources (American Psychological Association, 2019),
- decrease in social stigma,
- a more open culture about well-being, trauma, and personal boundaries.
In contexts with dynamics of control, this openness can be reinterpreted as “lack of strength”, a phenomenon that studies of emotional abuse call “institutional gaslighting” (Sweet, 2019).
2. How the IVE uses this narrative to de-responsibility
The expression appears when a young person experiences anxiety, stress, or discomfort related to internal practices, as explained by theoretical models of spiritual abuse (Oakley & Kinmond, 2013; Ward, 2011). In the face of vocational crises, symptoms of exhaustion or doubts, the superiors of the IVE can respond with typical phrases such as:
- “Before, seminarians put up with more.”
- “Young people are very fragile now.”
- “They have no spirit of sacrifice.”
According to the specialized literature, this type of discourse is a form of blaming the individual that allows the organization to avoid scrutiny and self-criticism (Lalich, 2004; Shaw, 2014).
3. Psychological function: turning suffering into guilt
The psychology of spiritual abuse indicates that blaming the victim for his or her own suffering is a classic strategy of authoritarian institutions (Brown, 2009). In this context, discomfort is not read as a sign that something is wrong with the system, but as a sign that something is wrong with the person.
3.1. Structural de-responsibility
Singer (2003) explains that highly controlled groups tend to reinterpret the psychological symptoms caused by their practices as personal failures. If the problem is “generational fragility,” then the institution:
- you don’t need to revise your training model,
- it does not need to adapt pedagogical methods,
- it does not need to recognize excesses or abuses,
- You don’t need to see mental health specialists.
Responsibility is thus transferred from the system to the individual, nullifying the possibility of structural reform.
3.2. Victim-blaming
This phenomenon coincides with the theory of the double bind described by Bateson (1972): the young person receives the message that he must obey, but if he suffers for obeying, the problem is his lack of faith, maturity or virtue.
Instead of interpreting distress as a legitimate red flag, it becomes evidence of:
- spiritual immaturity,
- selfishness,
- lack of vocation,
- inner disobedience.
This increases pathological self-demand and prevents the person from asking for professional help or allowing themselves to question the environment.
3.3. Vertical obedience reinforcement
Lifton’s (1989) studies on mental totalitarianism show that the pathologization of doubt strengthens the domination of authority. When all internal resistance is labeled as “fragility of the crystal generation,” doubting ceases to be a legitimate act and becomes a moral fault.
The implicit message is: “if you suffer, the problem is you; if you obey more, it will pass away.” This fits with patterns described in sectarian and spiritual abuse contexts (Lalich & Tobias, 2006; Oakley & Kinmond, 2013).
4. Useful narrative to hide the real causes of suffering
4.1. Disproportionate demands
Intense religious practices, long hours, and rigid training models coincide with the elements of behavioral constriction described by Hassan (2018) in the BITE (Behavior–Information–Thought–Emotional control) model. Within the IVE, daily life may include:
- very strict schedules,
- little or no personal privacy,
- constant apostolic pressure,
- a permanent discourse of sacrifice and heroism.
In a secular work or educational context, these conditions would be easily recognized as stressful or even abusive. Inside, however, they are clothed in a spiritual language that legitimizes them as “trials” or “purification.”
4.2. Absence of professional psychological support
Numerous studies show that minimizing clinical symptoms, especially in religious contexts, magnifies psychological damage (DeYoung, 2015; Garland & Argueta, 2010). In many high-control communities, scientific psychology is distrusted, and mental health problems are reinterpreted as:
- lack of prayer,
- lack of faith,
- attacks of the devil,
- resistance to grace.
This extreme spiritualist reading prevents proper diagnoses and delays access to necessary treatments.
4.3. Culture of heroism
The emphasis on extreme sacrifice and heroic virtue coincides with what Lalich (2004) calls “bounded choice”: a framework of thought that makes members internalize as a free choice what is actually institutional pressure. The more the ideal of “enduring everything for Christ’s sake” is exalted, the easier it becomes to blame those who can’t stand it.
In this climate, the label of “crystal generation” becomes a perfect tool to reinforce the ideal of absolute resistance and contempt for one’s own vulnerability.
5. A Familiar Pattern in Authoritarian Organizations
The literature on the sociology of new religious movements identifies this mechanism as part of the logic of institutional self-exculpation: the group is never responsible; it is always the individual (Barker, 1984; Richardson, 1995). This logic is observed in:
- religious sects,
- radicalized political groups,
- coercive self-help organizations,
- gated communities with charismatic leadership.
In all these contexts, the script is similar: when someone suffers, it is interpreted as a symptom of their weakness or lack of commitment, never as a sign that the system is oppressive.
The use of “crystal generation” in the IVE fits exactly into this pattern, adapted to Catholic religious language and the rhetoric of sacrifice.
6. Psychological consequences for young members
6.1. Mute
Silence as a survival mechanism coincides with models of religious trauma (Ferenczi, 1932; Ward, 2011). The young person quickly learns that expressing discomfort can be interpreted as a sign of:
- lack of vocation,
- rebellion,
- pride,
- Belonging to the “crystal generation”.
As a result, many internalize the unwritten slogan: “you don’t talk about what hurts, you offer it.” This shift from legitimate complaint to religious “offering” is typical of spiritual abuse.
6.2. Deteriorating mental health
Former members of high-control groups frequently present with anxiety, depression, religious post-traumatic stress disorder, and deep feelings of guilt and shame (Gill, 2020; DeYoung, 2015; Shaw, 2014). The message of the “crystal generation” then becomes an inner voice that repeats:
“If you are bad, it is because you are useless”, “if you broke, it is because you are weak”.
This makes it extremely difficult to recognize the damage, name it, and seek appropriate therapeutic help.
6.3. Reintegration difficulties
Lalich & Tobias (2006) describe the phenomenon of “post-cult syndrome”, which appears when a person leaves a coercive environment and must reconstruct their identity and belief system. In the case of former members of the IVE, the narrative of the “crystal generation” can continue to operate as an internal echo that sabotages self-esteem:
- feel guilty for going out
- are perceived as failures,
- have difficulty trusting their own judgment,
- They minimize the abuse experienced because “surely others endured more.”
All of this prolongs suffering and increases the need for psychological accompaniment specialized in religious trauma and spiritual abuse.
7. Ethical and ecclesial implications
In the Catholic context, the use of this narrative contradicts Holy See documents on the protection of vulnerable persons (Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, 2016). The Church explicitly calls for:
- listening to the suffering of the victims,
- investigate allegations of abuse,
- Promote safe environments in educational and religious institutions.
Labeling young people as a “crystal generation” to dismiss their psychological problems goes in the opposite direction: it ridicules vulnerability, blocks listening and favors the persistence of abuse.
In addition, it conflicts with the principles of pastoral accompaniment proposed by Daniel P. Sulmasy (2006), who emphasizes the dignity of the patient and the importance of compassionate listening, and with the ethics of care defended by Phyllis Zagano (2011), who calls for more horizontal and responsible ecclesial structures.
8. Conclusion
The expression “crystal generation,” applied to the context of the Institute of the Incarnate Word, does not describe an actual generational change, but rather a rhetorical device that allows:
- denying institutional responsibility,
- blaming young people for their suffering,
- reinforce rigid authority structures,
- maintaining psychologically harmful practices,
- to silence emotional affectations.
Far from being a diagnosis, it is a mechanism of power. Understanding this is essential to critically analyze the internal dynamics of the Institute of the Incarnate Word and its formative practices, and to open the way to more healthy, transparent ecclesial models that respect human dignity.
Academic bibliography (selection)
Spiritual abuse, sectarian dynamics, and coercion
- Barker, E. (1984). The Making of a Moonie: Choice or Brainwashing?
- Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind.
- Hassan, S. (2018). Combating Cult Mind Control.
- Lalich, J. (2004). Bounded Choice: True Believers and Charismatic Cults.
- Lalich, J., & Tobias, M. (2006). Take Back Your Life: Recovering from Cults and Abusive Relationships.
- Lifton, R. J. (1989). Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism.
- Shaw, D. (2014). Traumatic Narcissism: Relational Systems of Subjugation.
- Singer, M. (2003). Cults in Our Midst.
Spiritual Abuse and Religious Psychology
- Brown, L. (2009). Cultural Competence in Trauma Therapy.
- DeYoung, R. (2015). “Understanding Spiritual Abuse.” Journal of Psychology and Theology.
- Oakley, L., & Kinmond, K. (2013). Spiritual Abuse: Coercion and Control in Religious Families.
- Ward, T. (2011). Religious Trauma Syndrome.
Psychology of young generations
- American Psychological Association. (2019). Stress in America Survey.
- Arnett, J. (2014). Emerging Adulthood.
- Twenge, J. (2017). iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious and More Anxious.
Trauma, guilt and institutional silence
- Ferenczi, S. (1932). Confusion of Tongues.
- Garland, D., & Argueta, C. (2010). “Spirituality and Mental Health.” Social Work & Christianity.
- Gill, A. (2020). The Trauma of Spiritual Abuse.
- Sweet, P. (2019). “Gaslighting as Sociological Process.” American Sociological Review.
Ethics and Pastoral Theology
- Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. (2016). Guidelines for the protection of minors.
- Sulmasy, D. P. (2006). The Rebirth of the Clinic: An Introduction to Spirituality in Health Care.
- Zagano, P. (2011). The Spirituality of Leadership.
Leave a Reply