{"id":12288,"date":"2026-10-29T19:08:11","date_gmt":"2026-10-29T19:08:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/verbo-encarnado-ssvm-abusos.info\/story-of-a-former-member-of-the-institute-of-the-incarnate-word\/"},"modified":"2026-10-29T19:08:31","modified_gmt":"2026-10-29T19:08:31","slug":"story-of-a-former-member-of-the-institute-of-the-incarnate-word","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/verbo-encarnado-ssvm-abusos.info\/en\/story-of-a-former-member-of-the-institute-of-the-incarnate-word\/","title":{"rendered":"Story of a former member of the Institute of the Incarnate Word"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

For the good of the Holy Catholic Church and of the future souls who will entrust their vocations to the IVE<\/em><\/p>\n\n

This account is presented anonymously and corresponds, in good faith, to the experiences I lived, to the situations I witnessed and to the way in which certain events were presented and lived during my stay at the Institute. I do not intend to present an isolated event or to attribute individual responsibility to a specific person, but to record behaviors and dynamics that, over time, caught my attention and that I consider important for a broader evaluation of the reality of formation and the internal life of the Institute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I ask that my identity be preserved. The choice of anonymity responds to the fear of possible personal consequences and the need to protect my current life. My goal is, acting in good faith, that certain experiences can be known and evaluated by the competent authorities.<\/p>\n\n

1. General experience and contradictions observed<\/h2>\n\n

The holiness proposed by the IVE really dazzles and captivates any soul who feels the call to religious life. I was a member of simple vows and remained in the Institute for approximately six years. Throughout that period, however, various aspects caused the Congregation to gradually lose for me the luster that it initially awakened. Among these aspects were the behaviors of superiors and situations that I witnessed directly that, at certain moments, seemed to contradict the good manners and behaviors that were required of the members themselves. The priest, as pastor, must take care of all the souls entrusted to him, and not only those of his preference. The personal closeness, affinity or outstanding character of a given member should not be criteria to establish who deserves more attention, care or consideration. This difference in treatment was something that I experienced at times.<\/p>\n\n

2. Overload, work and formation<\/h2>\n\n

Among the difficulties experienced during this period was also the emotional burden and responsibility attributed to seminarians and religious. Integral dedication to seminary activities can be a very beautiful experience when lived with balance and purpose. However, on several occasions, the number of responsibilities, activities and work schedules produced a considerable physical and mental overload.<\/p>\n\n

In some of these situations, the formators conveyed the idea that, in the missions, we would have twice as much work, even heavier activities and less rest time, being necessary to adapt and not “slacken”. In practice, I perceived that this model strongly affected studies and that, especially in the first years, study ended up receiving less importance in the face of the demands of the work.<\/p>\n\n

In the novitiate, the experience seemed to me, at certain times, a kind of test of endurance, as if those who endured the difficulties showed that they had a vocation to continue. Later, in the Major Seminary, I perceived a similar dynamic among those who lived together or had a vocational experience, marked by a lot of manual work and very little personal accompaniment to the vocation. Dedication and discipline are important values in religious formation. However, seminarians and religious are still people, with human limits, physical and emotional needs, and a need for rest. When responsibilities accumulate excessively, what should contribute to formation can end up producing just the opposite effect.<\/p>\n\n

3. Dealing with members’ limitations and difficulties<\/h2>\n\n

I was also particularly struck by certain behaviors that, in my opinion, did not correspond to what is expected of a formator. When certain characteristics, difficulties or limitations of seminarians had to be addressed through guidance, counseling and help to overcome them, I witnessed situations in which these characteristics were used as a reason for ridicule, mockery or contempt. It is not a question of affirming that all correction is inadequate. Formation requires correction, discipline and, often, firmness. There is, however, an important difference between correcting someone to help him grow and exposing him to ridicule for what he needs to correct, especially publicly before the other members of the community. This behavior was most noticeable, in my experience, during the novitiate.<\/p>\n\n

This type of behavior can be especially harmful when it comes from someone who occupies a position of authority and training, precisely because there is a relationship of trust and hierarchical inequality. What, coming from a colleague, could be taken simply as a joke, acquires another weight when it comes from a superior or trainer.<\/p>\n\n

From what I was able to witness, certain similar attitudes also reached ecclesiastical authorities, even through depreciating comments or ridiculing their attitudes. This led me to question to what extent certain practices conformed to the spirit of obedience and respect for the authority of the Church that formation itself seeks to transmit as one of the fundamental elements of the Institute.<\/p>\n\n

4. Lack of acceptance and accompaniment in personal situations<\/h2>\n\n

Another important aspect refers to the attention paid to the personal and emotional difficulties of the members. During the period in which I was in the Institute, I went through moments of significant emotional difficulty. As it is a reality of formation and community life, it was to be expected that situations of this nature would be addressed with due attention and adequate accompaniment.<\/p>\n\n

However, on a certain occasion, the way in which the situation was managed left, in my opinion, much to be desired. Some measures were not taken that I consider necessary in the face of what was being experienced, and the accompaniment received did not correspond to the seriousness that the situation demanded.<\/p>\n\n

What marked me the most was to perceive that, in similar situations or according to the people involved, the attention and concern shown could be different. This perception, added to the delicate moment I was going through, made the experience even more difficult. I do not intend to expose particular circumstances or involve other people who were also part of that reality. The objective is to record that there was, according to my perception, a failure in the reception and accompaniment of a situation that required greater attention.<\/p>\n\n

The consequences of that period were profound and went beyond the moment itself, leaving sequels that remain in my life. With the passage of time, the difficulties worsened and played a decisive role in my decision to leave the Institute. Perhaps a different attention, a more careful listening or an appropriate intervention at that time could have changed the course of events and my vocation. It is not possible to know. But it is precisely because I have lived through that experience that I consider it important to note that religious formation cannot be limited to spiritual, disciplinary and academic demands. It is also necessary to see the person behind the religious.<\/p>\n\n

5. Lack of transparency and way of communicating difficulties<\/h2>\n\n

Another aspect that I consider important to mention is the lack of transparency in certain situations that affected the Institute itself and its relationship with the Holy See.<\/p>\n\n

During the time I was in the institution, information about important events, actions taken by Church authorities, or situations that directly affected the life and future of the Institute did not always reach the members clearly. Many times we remained without understanding exactly what was happening, what the reasons for certain decisions were, or what the circumstances were surrounding important issues in the community itself.<\/p>\n\n

I can recall, as examples, times when priests relevant to the community were no longer present for extended periods without sufficient clarification to the members. In one such situation, I learned about the whereabouts of a priest from a layman who asked me how he was doing and told me that he had left the priesthood. As a member of the Institute, I had not received equivalent information from the superiors. Subsequently, I perceived a similar situation with regard to the then provincial superior.<\/p>\n\n

This dynamic of lack of transparency generated insecurity and bewilderment. Those outside the institution often seemed to be better informed of what was happening internally than the religious themselves, while those of us who were directly subjected to this reality often remained without sufficient information to understand what was happening.<\/p>\n\n

6. On the interpretation of concrete difficulties as spiritual suffering<\/h2>\n\n

There was also another aspect that caused me concern: the way in which certain difficulties, sufferings and situations of great demand were interpreted spiritually. At various times, difficulties related to the conditions and structural problems of the houses of formation in the Province, including questions of food and other material conditions that, in my opinion, exceeded the normal difficulties of religious life, were linked to the so-called “dark night” of St. John of the Cross.<\/p>\n\n

I recognize that there is a legitimate spiritual tradition within the Church for understanding suffering and interior purification. The problem, it seems to me, arose when concrete difficulties and situations that required human, psychological, or institutional analysis came to be interpreted predominantly as a necessary part of a process of sanctification.<\/p>\n\n

In some circumstances, the idea was also transmitted that certain sufferings, sacrifices or bodily penances had to be offered for the good of the Congregation or of the founder himself. In this way, a difficulty that could have been raised by the question “what is happening and what needs to be corrected?” ended up receiving another interpretation: “it must be endured and offered”.<\/p>\n\n

I do not consider these events as isolated cases. I especially remember moments in the novitiate when basic hygiene resources, including water, were lacking, situations that, in my experience, contributed to health problems and diseases. There is a difference between voluntarily accepting the sacrifices proper to a religious vocation and transforming all suffering into something that must necessarily be endured, offered or spiritualized, without first questioning whether there is a concrete situation that needs to be corrected.<\/p>\n\n

7. The figure of the founder and the interpretation of suffering<\/h2>\n\n

I was also struck by the way in which the figure of the founder was presented within this spirituality. In certain situations, the reference to the suffering offered by the founder, by the Congregation and for the good of the work seemed to take on a dimension that, in my perception, went beyond a simple historical or spiritual reference to the founder.<\/p>\n\n

I do not affirm that this was necessarily the conscious intention of all those responsible. I am referring to the impression that this way of presenting things produced on those who were in formation.<\/p>\n\n

For me, at times, there seemed to be an equivalence between the figure of the founder and models of holiness such as that of St. John of the Cross, especially in the idea of suffering, trial, sacrifice, poverty and purification. This association made me question the extent to which it was possible to adequately distinguish what belongs to the legitimate spirituality of the Church from what was specifically related to the figure and personal history of the founder.<\/p>\n\n

Today, in view of the decisions taken subsequently by the Holy See itself in relation to Father Carlos Miguel Buela, I consider it even more necessary to make this distinction. One thing is the charism that the Church recognizes and what is legitimate in a religious vocation, and another thing is the personal conduct of its founder. One should not be confused with the other.<\/p>\n\n

Perhaps this is one of the most important reflections that remain for those of us who go through this reality: suffering does not necessarily mean being on the right path; obedience does not mean ceasing to discern; and a difficulty does not cease to be so simply because it has received a spiritual interpretation.<\/p>\n\n

8. On the systematic interpretation of opposition as persecution<\/h2>\n\n

There was also an issue that was particularly significant to me: the way in which situations in which there was disagreement, questioning, or some external intervention were presented to the members with respect to the Institute or the figure of its founder.<\/p>\n\n

When certain positions or measures did not correspond to what was transmitted to us about the founder or about the way of life of the IVE, these situations often presented themselves from the perspective of persecution of the Congregation or of the work itself. This happened even when the situation involved authorities or came from the Church itself. Instead of presenting these circumstances to the members in an objective way, with their reasons and their different aspects, many times the understanding transmitted was that it was a persecution that had to be faced mainly through prayer.<\/p>\n\n

I remember situations in which we were encouraged to pray for an end to this situation, for God to intervene or for what was understood as persecution to come to an end. This was presented, on some occasions, in connection with the idea that such persecutions would be part of the history and intention attributed to the founder since the foundation of the IVE.<\/p>\n\n

Prayer, of course, has always been a part of religious life, and I see no problem in resorting to it in the face of difficulty. What I had doubts about was when prayer seemed to replace the need to objectively understand what was happening, especially when it came to decisions or statements coming from Church authorities itself. This way of dealing with external tensions created a mechanism by which it was difficult to question or critically analyze what was happening. A scheme of interpretation was conveyed that tended to pre-frame any criticism or corrective measure as hostility or misunderstanding, making it difficult to interpret events that contradicted the internal narrative presented to the members.<\/p>\n\n

Gradually, this created a kind of division between what was presented internally as the truth about the Institute and what came from outside. When there was some contradiction between these two perspectives, the tendency I perceived was to interpret the external position as opposition, persecution, or misunderstanding of the work.<\/p>\n\n

For those inside, this made it difficult to form their own judgment about events. After all, if a position against the Institute was already presented as the result of persecution, there was little room left to simply ask what had happened, what were the reasons for that decision and whether there might eventually be a legitimate criticism to consider.<\/p>\n\n

This also contributed to the fact that certain questions were received more as a spiritual battle to be won with prayer than as concrete events that could and should be analyzed with serenity, transparency and a spirit of obedience to one’s own Church.<\/p>\n\n

The point that I consider important to record, therefore, is not simply that there were divergences, but that I perceived a recurrent dynamic by which what came from outside and contradicted the internal understanding of the Institute tended to be framed beforehand as opposition or persecution. This dynamic deserves, in my opinion, to be examined in an institutional way.<\/p>\n\n

9. Leaving the Institute and absence of subsequent accompaniment<\/h2>\n\n

In conclusion, I left the Institute of my own free will. The decision was mine, even after the formators affirmed and reaffirmed that I had a religious vocation. When I made the decision to leave, there was no opposition to my departure.<\/p>\n\n

However, I left as a religious and remained for a few months outside the seminary even with vows, without receiving sufficient accompaniment and guidance on how to live that period and on the process of reintegration into life outside the Institute. I am aware that similar experiences occurred with other people who also left that reality.<\/p>\n\n

The consequences of that experience went beyond the moment of departure. The difficulty of reinsertion into lay life, into the Church and into society was significant. What remained was not a loss of faith in the Holy Catholic Church, but a profound distrust regarding the possibility of finding fidelity and coherence in works that, to those who see them from the outside, may seem holy and perfect.<\/p>\n\n

I carry only a great mark of psychological suffering; I can say that there was a before and after the IVE. Contrary to what many former members attest, my faith was evidently affected by the IVE’s counter-testimony to me. Today I have to deal with all the consequences of the unfortunate period I went through, and for a long time I blamed myself thinking that I was to blame for having stagnated in the IVE.<\/p>\n\n

I also consider it important to record the way in which those who left the Institute were classified internally, including through the use of the term “deceased”, distinguishing, in a certain way, those who would have gone “well” from those who would have gone “badly”, without necessarily understanding the individual circumstances that led each person to leave the community.<\/p>\n\n

I took responsibility for my period of formation and tried to fulfill my duties and other obligations assumed. Even so, when I left the Institute, I did not receive the guidance and support I expected, given the teaching on the responsibility of forming and accompanying those who entered religious life.<\/p>\n\n

10. Final consideration<\/h2>\n\n

I do not present this account as an attempt to condemn indiscriminately all the people who are or were part of the IVE, nor as an affirmation that all experiences have been the same. Nor do I intend to question the Catholic faith, religious life or what legitimately belongs to the spirituality of the Church.<\/p>\n\n

What I wish to record are patterns of behavior and institutional dynamics that I experienced or witnessed and that I consider important enough to be known, examined and, if necessary, corrected by the competent authorities.<\/p>\n\n

I hope that this account will not be left aside once again. May it contribute to future vocations being welcomed with true care, that members are treated with dignity, that concrete difficulties are evaluated with transparency, and that no authority or historical figure is placed above the possibility of discernment, correctness, and truth.<\/p>\n\n

May no other person have to bear similar consequences alone and may those who enter a religious vocation be accompanied in such a way that, welcomed and respected, they have the conditions to bear the fruits that God has destined for each one.<\/p>\n\n

So be it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

For the good of the Holy Catholic Church and of the future souls who will entrust their vocations to the IVE This account is presented anonymously and corresponds, in good faith, to the experiences I lived, to the situations I witnessed and to the way in which certain events were presented and lived during my […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":12289,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"jetpack_seo_schema_type":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[197],"tags":[3627,654,458,3626,3631,606,3629,701,939,2236,3630,3628],"class_list":["post-12288","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-testimonies","tag-abuses-of-authority","tag-carlos-miguel-buela-en","tag-catholic-church","tag-former-members-of-the-ive","tag-holy-see-2","tag-institute-of-the-incarnate-word","tag-institutional-culture","tag-ive-en","tag-religious-formation","tag-spiritual-abuses","tag-spiritual-manipulation","tag-testimonials"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/verbo-encarnado-ssvm-abusos.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Solitude-au-cloitre-%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0astique.png?fit=1672%2C941&ssl=1","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/verbo-encarnado-ssvm-abusos.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12288","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/verbo-encarnado-ssvm-abusos.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/verbo-encarnado-ssvm-abusos.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/verbo-encarnado-ssvm-abusos.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/verbo-encarnado-ssvm-abusos.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12288"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/verbo-encarnado-ssvm-abusos.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12288\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12290,"href":"https:\/\/verbo-encarnado-ssvm-abusos.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12288\/revisions\/12290"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/verbo-encarnado-ssvm-abusos.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12289"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/verbo-encarnado-ssvm-abusos.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12288"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/verbo-encarnado-ssvm-abusos.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12288"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/verbo-encarnado-ssvm-abusos.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12288"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}