2 Critical Introduction to "Instruction on the manner to do proselytism", 1934

[Full text of internal document here: https://opendei.co.uk/document-2-instruction-2-proselytism ]

This “Instruction” of Monsignor Escrivá gives a detailed understanding of the deceitful mentality within Opus Dei of “proselytism”, usually now called “evangelisation”. This is one of the many internal documents that only priests and senior lay leaders know anything about or can access. I never heard of it during my time as a numerary. But I can say that most of the ideas in it were conveyed to me in talks and spiritual direction.

It is not my brief to attack Catholic evangelisation as a whole but rather to show that Opus Dei’s version of Catholic evangelisation involves pressure, coercion, deceit, secrecy, and manipulation. As such, it is neither Catholic, Christian nor human. And that, sadly, was certainly my painful experience of the organisation from my 9 years as a celibate numerary living in centres of Opus Dei in Britain.

The spiritual burden of evangelisation

Mgr Escrivá starts by insisting on the importance of prayer, mortification and other “divine means” when trying

“to get soldiers to enlist in the army of our God” (section 9). “ … if one of us aims to attract a new vocation, he should make extraordinary mortifications, and ask them of other souls, …” (section 12). “You must try to win over the Guardian Angel of the person you wish to attract,...” (13).

Perhaps in itself this seems innocuous and “Catholic”. After all, if Catholics want something from God, they are supposed to pray for it. The danger is that such efforts convince the Opus Dei member - who will always discuss them in spiritual direction - that his or her evangelistic goal is undeniably from God and so invest emotionally and spiritually in it. In turn, this softens him or her up for the underhand recruitment tactics that we will look at later.

However, even at this stage, Monsignor Escrivá cannot help but put pressure and a false burden of conscience onto the Opus Dei member.

“It is not you who call: it is He, Christ!... — Jesus, who on the day of judgment will hold us strictly accountable for His call...: on that day, we will have to answer not only for the evil we have done, but also for the good we fail to do.” (83)

“Vibrate [spiritually], and those of you who are isolated, don't complain. — Isn't your isolation perhaps voluntary?” (85)

Countless members and ex-members feel like failures in Opus Dei because they do not manage to “get new vocations”. Like most cults, Opus Dei leaders turn this failure back on the member in spiritual direction and talks from the priest and lay leaders. “What more can you do? Are you lukewarm? Maybe you need to pray harder or be bolder in your conversations.” In any case, it’s down to you! This approach is cancerous to self-esteem.

Explicit deceit in getting a person to speak to a priest

Escrivá emphasises the role of the priest in 69, “You begin the work of proselytizing, and the priest perfects it” and in 73 “Consult with them in each case[68]And then you will bring to dry land, to the feet of these Christs—the priests—like Peter, like John, like Thomas, large fish, one hundred and fifty-three.

In section 81, Escrivá states:

“With holy mischief, bring to our priests the souls whose vocation concerns you.[75]If you cannot or it is not discreet to take them under your direction from the beginning, put them in contact with our priests for a professional matter, presenting them as advisors in Law, Morality, Philosophy, History, Literature, etc.[76]This point is of great importance.”

This is straight-out deceit and immoral, which no sincere Christian would ever back. In my time in Opus Dei, I knew that the idea was to get potential recruits to speak to a lay leader or priest but I never heard of the notion of using mischief or deception to make that happen. I was never on a local council or entrusted with a mission to get someone to speak to a priest, thank God.

There are recorded instances of Opus Dei priests proposing vocations to Opus Dei to people, even minors, under cover of the seal of the confessional.

Explicit deceit in breaking up a group of friends

In section 18, Escrivá writes:.

“Never try to recruit a group. Vocations must come one by one, disbanding—if necessary—that little group with the prudence of a serpent..., God willing.”

So we can see that Escrivá’s deceit and immorality is not just a one-off. Imagine plotting to break up a group of friends to get one of them to join your religious group. However, Opus Dei is shot through with that mentality.

Remember that this would not be done in isolation. No member of Opus Dei would start off thinking that he or she has to do such a thing. They would have to be advised to do so in spiritual direction or directly by a member of the local council that directs the centre, including the priest. So attempts to break up a group of friends would inevitably be known about and orchestrated in the local council.

It is interesting that manifestly immoral ideas like this are withheld from some of the rank-and-file on a case-by-case basis. No doubt, careful consideration is given in Opus Dei councils as to which members can be trusted to keep secret such incriminating information.

Use of state resources

One of the largest difficulties in holding the Prelature to account is the fact that it operates its public activities such as schools and youth initiatives through civil entities, like charitable trusts and limited companies. If those initiatives are deemed “personal apostolates”, then the role of Opus Dei is not publicised.

This is the case, for example, for St Bede’s College, Manchester, which is run by a charitable trust headed up by a board of trustees, a chaplain, head teacher, and main investor, all of whom are in Opus Dei but not public about it. Why? Because in English law, they do not have to be. In this way, they can gain tax exemptions and public accreditations for those parts of their activities that are not explicitly evangelistic, giving cover for those parts which are.

This modus operandi is mandated in section 24:

“You will carry out your apostolate from the most modest positions to the most important in society, often with state money and in state buildings.”

Distance from families

Escriva writes, mainly in connection with numeraries:

“25. 6) It is true that you force yourselves to remain indifferent towards your families, as if you were entering a religious congregation.”

This mentality is absolutely alien to the Catholic church’s view of lay people. However, it is a fact on the ground that priests and celibate members of Opus Dei living in centres become progressively alienated from their families.

Posing the question of a vocation to Opus Dei, and confidentiality

In 15, Escrivá instructs: “To reach that confidence, seeing that the soul we are dealing with responds to the calls of your conversation kindled in the fire of God's glory, it will suffice for you to present to him as something possible, as a hypothesis, the need for the apostolate that we live.[15]

16. 2) Then, if you proceed, it is also essential in all cases to commit the person you are speaking to to maintain a certain discretion regarding everything related to your confidential conversation.[16]

We can see here the one-way confidentiality of spiritual direction in Opus Dei. Those who receive it are expected to keep it confidential. Tellingly, there is no mention of confidentiality on the part of the spiritual director within Opus Dei. We know from other internal documents and the everyday practice in Opus Dei that there is no such confidentiality. This becomes apparent over time to members rather than being explained explicitly.

Other sections of the document reveal to us the kinds of people that Escrivá deemed worthy of targeting for a vocation to Opus Dei and those who he did not. I encourage you to read it all.

Thank you for reading.

Contact

Questions or feedback? Reach out anytime.

michael@opendei.co.uk

© 2026. All rights reserved.