Catherine Tissier v. Opus Dei-related defendants (2011-2016)

In 2016, a French appeal court convicted an Opus Dei-controlled catering college of multiple breaches of labor law and ordered it to pay compensation to a former assistant numerary of Opus Dei, Catherine Tissier, for exploiting her vulnerability.

How and when did Catherine first get involved in Opus Dei as a child?

Catherine enrolled in “Dosnon” hospitality school near Paris as a boarder to study for her 5th grade exams and a 3-year hospitality diploma recognized by the French government. Opus Dei members ran “Dosnon”. The appeal court decision of 2016 recorded and accepted Catherine’s testimony on how she got involved in Opus Dei from the age of 14. The Opus Dei defendants did not dispute it. The court decision says:“...she was gradually led to become involved in the Opus Dei movement and alleges an imposed distance from her family and a progressive break with the outside world. According to her, this psychological conditioning started from her second year of schooling. She had to attend meditations every Wednesday afternoon, led by the school chaplain, a priest of Opus Dei. At each meditation, there was also a confession in which it was strongly recommended to participate regularly and during which the priest asked many questions about private life. Her tutor, … who helped her with her schooling, asked questions on the subject developed by the priest and brought more and more respect for the principles which she later understood to be those of Opus Dei: daily masses, reflection on “her plan of life”.

How and when did Catherine join Opus Dei?

She asked to be admitted (“whistled”) at the age of 16. The court stated:“On October 18, 1987 (aged 16): under the dictation of [a numerary who was her guardian], she wrote a letter addressed to the first successor of the founder of Opus Dei, in which she requested his admission as an assistant numerary with commitments to chastity, obedience and poverty.

She also committed to always doing housework and following a plan of life defined by the founder: going to mass every day, two half hours of prayer every day, saying rosaries, and taking internal courses taught by the chaplain.

Her guardian asked her not to tell her parents about this commitment.

In October 1988, there was a new commitment, called oblation, which was renewed for five years, before she made her definitive commitment on May 21, 1994 before the director.”

What work did Catherine do for Opus Dei-controlled organizations?

The court records her working days of 10 to 12 hours, cooking, cleaning, studying, and training others. “[She] alleged that from her first year of schooling, including one hour of lessons in the morning and four hours in the afternoon (traditional lessons or those linked to the hotel industry), she also worked on preparing meals, sometimes for a hundred people, as well as cleaning and the office in the premises of the school and the castle [Couvrelles - the Opus Dei conference center that Dosnon maintained]. The day started at 8:15 a.m. and ended with lunch and dinner. In addition, before going to bed, students had to attend a meeting with teachers.” “... in September 1988, at the age of 18, she stayed for 10 months in an Opus Dei center in London … where she was supposed to learn English but mainly did housework, for ten hours a day, seven days a week. In July 1989, she was hired, under a first 18-month employment contract, by ACUT [the Opus Dei-controlled organization that ran Couvrelles, Dosnon and other Parisian centers] for the Garnelles establishment, rue Jean Nicot in Paris 7th (student or young worker hostel), where she performed tasks for ten hours each day.

It was at this time that she began to see her parents less regularly and that she began to experience depression, having been followed by Doctor Descout who prescribed tranquilizers and antidepressants.” “From September 1990, [Catherine] worked at the school of Dosnon as an instructor, 11 to 12 hours a day, every day of the week.

… From September 1992, she worked for the APMF, another association dependent on Opus Dei, which managed a home for young workers for girls. Her situation did not improve and she became increasingly depressed.” “From September 1993 until September 1998, she alternated jobs between centers dependent on the ACUT, the ACA and the APMF, other associations within the fold of Opus Dei.” “In September 1998, while continuing to be employed by the APMF, she had worked for a certain time for a family linked to Opus Dei, the [name] couple, doing housework and looking after the children. She was paid part-time even though she said she worked from morning to evening from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. The … couple confirmed that they had hired Catherine for 9 months as an au pair ... She was then housed, fed, declared [as an employee] and paid by check 2,200 F per month for 16 hours a week to be done in the mornings on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays.

According to them, Catherine Tissier helped them late in the evening, beyond the hours appearing on her contract, out of “kindness” and because she agreed. They also confirmed that she sometimes looked after another child in the neighborhood at their request without however doing 12 hours of daily work.“ “It was during this period that she was hospitalized for three weeks at the Sainte-Anne Paris hospital, before resuming her work with the Du Parc couple.” “...from September 1999 until January 2001, she returned to Couvrelles and worked for the International Meeting Center for a monthly contractual schedule of 120 hours (no usual work was scheduled on weekends).”

How and when did Catherine leave Opus Dei?

In brief, she ended up in a very serious physical condition and her parents took charge of her. The court decision of 2016 stated: “In July 1989, suffering from depression, Catherine was taken by [name] director of the establishment, to see Dr. Dominique Descout [noted by the court as having been in Opus Dei himself since age 19]. This doctor subsequently cared for Catherine medically for 10 years and, during her consultations, was always accompanied by a member of the school.” “Catherine …reported that she had been employed in several centers with links to Opus Dei … until the moment when she returned to her parents for the "annual weekend” granted to her, in January 2001. Her parents then discovered her in in poor physical condition, weighing 42 kilos [92 lb], speaking with difficulty and suffering from tremors.” “It emerged from the medical certificate of Dr. Alain Caumont, who had examined Catherine Tissier on January 12, 2001, that she had undergone very heavy treatment with neuroleptics [under Dr Descaut] which required gradual drug withdrawal, in addition to a long work stoppage. The Soissons occupational medicine concluded on June 11, 2001 that she was unfit for work due to immediate danger.” “After her departure, [name], the director of the school of Dosnon, tried in March 2001 to talk to Catherine about her "commitment" in order to get her to come back, but she refused. Catherine Tissier hid in May 2001 when the director brought her checkbooks and account statements to her parents' home where she now lived.”

What was the outcome of the court case involving Catherine?

The 2016 appeal court in Amiens was the fourth and final court to hear this case and found two Opus Dei numeraries and an Opus Dei-controlled organization guilty of multiple criminal breachers of labor law and liable for compensation to Catherine. It decided:

the Opus Dei body that ran “Dosnon” catering school, ACUT, had to pay a fine of 30,000 euros for its criminal failure to declare the employment status of dozens of Dosnon students

there were criminal failures to make social security payments and to pay a level of “remuneration contrary to dignity” to these women

there were criminal misrepresentations on the payslips of 5 employees of Dosnon of the number of hours worked i.e. underreporting of hours worked

two Dosnon managers (numeraries) each had to pay a fine of 2,000 euros

ACUT had to pay Catherine

6,918 euros for unpaid salaryo
20,000 euros for “moral”, psychological damage and ulcerative colitiso
12,000 euros in legal costs

In total, Opus Dei defendants had to pay around 73,000 euros for this case, as well as their own legal costs. Opus Dei defendants applied to the “Cour de Cassation” for a further appeal but did not file documents within the timescales. The appeal was disallowed on 17 October 2017 and the 2016 decision stands.

What happened in the courts before the final hearing?

The first judgement was given on 24 November 2011. All charges and claims were dismissed and Opus Dei was vindicated. Catherine and state prosecutors appealedThe second judgement (the 1st appeal) was on 26 March 2013. It overturned the first decision in full, except that Catherine’s compensation was limited to the 3 years before she started her claim, for procedural reasons - she was out of time for the period before then.The third judgement (2nd appeal) was dated 20 January 2015. This reversed the first appeal and vindicated Opus Dei again. But the court’s decision was not unanimous so the case was referred to another appeal court.The fourth judgment (3rd appeal – Amiens appeal court) was given on 27 July 2016. This reversed the 2nd appeal, convicted the Opus Dei defendants and awarded compensation to Catherine, as set out above. It provided detailed background, reconsidered all the witness and expert evidence, and detailed reasoning for its findings.

What evidence did the court consider on Catherine’s health and wellbeing?

The court heard from a large number of women working in Dosnon alongside Dosnon, who noted her psychological fragility. The doctor who signed Catherine unfit for work in 2001, Dr Caumont, noted an “immediate danger” to her life.The court noted that, from 1989 to 1999, Catherine regularly visited Dr Descout, a medically qualified Opus Dei member, for anxiety and weight loss, while other girls and women working alongside Catherine - who were not members of Opus Dei - visited the local doctor in the village. The evidence of Dr Descout was relied upon by the Opus Dei defendants, while Catherine and the court relied on a court-appointed medical expert.

What was the Opus Dei doctor’s (Dr Descout’s) evidence on Catherine’s health and wellbeing?

Dr Descout noted that Catherine never complained of working conditions. He considered her problems were related to tensions with her mother. He said that she had “full support” in her life (from Opus Dei). He did not notice her dependence on prescription medication.

What was the court expert’s evidence on coercion and Catherine’s health?

The court expert (name not known) believed that Opus Dei had been coercive in their dealings with Catherine.They described Catherine’s “vulnerability”, and how she was “easily influenced” and in need of a structure. At the time of the first report, Catherine was at home with her parents, recuperating. The expert noted a substantial improvement in her psychological health by the time of the second report in 2008. The expert likened Opus Dei to a “sect” in its recruitment and control over their members’ lives.

“...the story she tells is quite characteristic of the influence of certain sects on their members with early recruitment and commitment, total adhesion, a shared ideal, the implementation in place of a relational technique with one or more guardians, a technique of guilt and imposed secrecy which leads to sub-depression, even depression and induces greater dependence on the sect on which therapeutic hope is formed.”“… after several months of normal life and privileged relational support, the disappearance of the personality anomalies demonstrates that the depressive acts were generated by the abusive authority which controlled conscience and kept her in a social precariousness which deprived her of all personal freedom.”

Did the court accept this evidence on coercion and Catherine’s vulnerability?

The court accepted that Catherine’s psychological state was caused by the vulnerability that her working conditions and life in Opus Dei had left her in. The appeal courts accepted this evidence. The 2016 decision held: (page 54):“The vulnerability of Catherine Tissier is sufficiently demonstrated by the two expert reports which describe, at the time of the facts, a manifest psychological vulnerability with a subdepressive or even depressive state inducing dependence on others. It does not matter that the first expert (Note: I think Dr Descout) dates this vulnerability back to a period prior to his entry into the Dosnon school. In addition, the testimonies relied on by the defendants to demonstrate that Catherine Tissier was not able, due to the fragility of her state of health, to work like the others and had to be taken care of also contribute to the demonstration of apparent vulnerability. Finally, the medical certificate issued by Doctor Caumont, who examined her during her return to the parental home [in 2001] and concluded the need for gradual drug withdrawal following a very heavy treatment with neuroleptics [sedatives], leaves no doubt about her vulnerability, which is quite apparent to all those who were in contact with her on a daily basis.”

It is worth comparing the court’s findings with this recent statement from Opus Dei:“In Opus Dei there has never been ill-informed or forced recruitment, or people reduced to servitude. - press release of OD in English 26.03.24 after FT article” https://opusdei.org/en-uk/article/q-a-about-the-financial-times-article/

What information did the courts record about how Opus Dei controls the money of assistant numeraries?

Catherine’s evidence to the court on the following was not contested:

She signed blank cheques which her director used to pay invoices from an Opus Dei publishing house.

2,300 francs per month of her 3,700 franc salary was deducted by ACUT for board and lodgings – but no receipt was given to Catherine and these deductions were not stated in her contract.

She made a will for the benefit of Opus Dei, as dictated by the director of her center.

What does Opus Dei say now about living and working conditions for assistant numeraries?

Pay

In Opus Dei’s more recent press statements (2023 and 2024), it says that it has updated its procedures to make sure that all labor legislation is complied with, including on employment contracts, payment of salaries and social security, and working hours and breaks. It says that all assistant numeraries have their own bank accounts and autonomy over their expenses. There is no independent evidence that this is true or not. To compare with numeraries, each of them has long had their own bank account, paid into centers their salaries and asked for what they needed. This is “good spirit” and the very clear expectation and modus operandi of Opus Dei. For numeraries to have real autonomy over their money, they would need to be dishonest with Opus Dei directors about what they earned or negotiate a very special arrangement. We can guess that the situation for assistant numeraries now is as it has always been for numeraries and so in practice they have arguably not benefited much from the outward change in procedures. It may be that Opus Dei entities have made up missing social security contributions and now comply with the law on that. This could be the main benefit of Opus Dei’s reforms in this area for assistant numeraries.

Closure of catering schools

Opus Dei’s latest press releases talk about catering schools and hospitality colleges in the past tense and there is evidence of them closing down from around 2016 e.g. Lexington in Chicago (USA), Dosnon itself, in Argentina, and several in Ireland. This trend seems largely driven by the increasing national demand for qualifications from accredited and reputable institutions. Standards in health, safety, and service quality have become more rigorous since the 1980s and arguably, people in society have seen that these colleges were not meeting them. There is anecdotal evidence that Opus Dei managers and trainers in these colleges did not engage sufficiently with the relevant regulatory bodies, had few hospitality or teaching qualifications, and operated without adequate external oversight, preferring to focus on “on-the-job” training. This would be consistent with the court’s findings in the Catherine Tissier case. The end-result may have been a decline in the reputation of such colleges, a shortage of students, and so too small a pool to recruit new assistant numeraries from.

Working and living conditions

From the above, it is likely that most assistant numeraries now work in Opus Dei centers only. It is hard to know if they are working in line with their contracts or doing more hours and how far Catherine’s case has really changed their lifestyles. It may be that Opus Dei has specified more clearly the salaried duties and hours of work for assistant numeraries under their employment contracts and the unsalaried duties that are expected for “family life” in the center where they live. In this way, assistant numeraries may be working as hard and as long as they did before.Opus Dei’s recent press is silent on the overall number of hours of work that assistant numeraries do now, including on whether they still work 7 days a week with few days of vacation per year. They are silent too on any change to the requirement for assistant numeraries to be supervised by numeraries when outside the center or accusations of limited opportunities for contact with their families.

What hurdles could other ex-numerary assistants with similar complaints to Catherine face today?

Out of time

Statutes of limitation for civil claims vary across countries but generally require injured parties to start legal action within a few years of an injury or knowledge that an injury may relate to events in the past. For this reason, Catherine’s compensation was limited to the 2 or 3 years before she officially reported legal action, not the whole of her employment.

Lawyers may need to find special arguments, like a new injury that developed a long time after work with Opus Dei but can be retrospectively attributed to it. Or there may be laws in some places relating to duress and coercion that allow later claims in certain circumstances. Lawyers may have different opinions in different countries but overall, being out of time may arguably be the biggest barrier to compensation claims for any ex-member who had left Opus Dei more than a few years before they considered legal action.Similar issues apply to criminal prosecutions, though sometimes authorities learn of a crime long after crimes happened and can then commence investigations. Sometimes, limitation periods for civil claims can be related to the date of criminal convictions.

Proving work done

In Catherine’s case, there were payslips and contracts but it needed a judicial investigation and testimony from many students and workers at Dosnon to establish the extent of undeclared work.

Investigators found that assistant numeraries employed by ACUT were at work in uniform at 6.30am, though their contract showed a start time of 9am, indicating higher hours of payable work than declared. With the help of evidence from a catering trade union expert, the court found that the work needed to maintain Couvrelles conference center needed several more full-time staff than had been declared.The court found that students did domestic work in Couvrelles that was not connected to their studies or supervised by course tutors. There may be difficulties in proving salary deductions for food and lodgings claimed by Opus Dei defendants were not mentioned in her contract. Catherine signed blank cheques, which her directors used to pay bills unconnected to her life, and so it can be difficult to trace how any salary was used.Catherine’s case was made easier because judicial investigators were instructed to investigate the criminal allegations, which turned up evidence contradicting the initial arguments of Opus Dei defendants.Former assistant numeraries elsewhere are likely to face similar gaps in documentary evidence. Building a coherent case from witness and expert evidence alone may be possible, though time-consuming, expensive and emotionally draining.

Identifying legal entities to sue

It has been reported that Argentine ex-numerary assistants would need to sue 5 different entities. Opus Dei states that many organizations employing assistant numeraries at catering schools no longer exist.

Opus Dei allegedly has a reputation for frequent corporate restructuring of the organizations that its members control, making legal action against them more complex.

Distinguishing work done for Opus Dei privately and work done professionally

Opus Dei press releases acknowledge that this distinction was too “blurred” in the past. In Catherine’s case, Opus Dei defendants argued that work done in excess of what was paid for or declared was done so voluntarily. However, the French appeal courts did not accept this and held that work that should be paid for cannot also be classified as voluntary.

The courts accepted Catherine’s case that there was no true distinction between ACUT, her employer, and Opus Dei, the church organization. However, one can expect this issue to be contested in other cases.

Medical evidence showing exploitation and coercion

For compensation beyond unpaid salary and social security i.e. for psychological abuse, medical evidence would probably be needed.

The court in Catherine’s case accepted the medical evidence of exploitation and coercion so there is a reasonable hope that similar evidence could be obtained in similar cases. However, this could be uncertain, expensive and emotionally draining.

Expense, emotional energy and time

Legal disputes take huge energy, money, and time. They are unpredictable and take a heavy toll on all concerned. Often, victims feel like they are on trial and cannot move on with their lives until the dispute is over. Opus Dei’s responses so far to complaints of exploitation seems to be blanket rejection, with intense and prolonged opposition in the case of Catherine Tissier’s case (despite Mt 5:40 and Lk 11:52)

Is it possible for former assistant numeraries to complain to the Vatican?

It is possible and Opus Dei is in theory accountable to the Vatican. 43 Argentine ex-assistant numeraries complained in 2021, but without response so far.

A formal complaint against Opus Dei under canon law for abuses across the organization, including treatment of assistant numeraries, has been filed but not resolved. This complaint covers some of the issues dealt with here. See:International_ecclesiastical_institutional_complaint_against_Opus_Dei_for_regulatory_fraud_against_the_Holy_See_and_the_members_themselves.pdf (opus-info.org)

What other means of redress are possible?

The “courts of public opinion” within the wider Catholic church and civil society, could add pressure to Opus Dei to be more amenable to claims for back pay and exploitation. Other Catholic institutions, including dioceses and the Jesuits, have faced up to some extent to historical abuse claims. Opus Dei’s legal nature within the Catholic church has recently changed, so that it is now accountable to the dicastery for clergy. It remains to be seen if this will open up options for pressure on Opus Dei from other Catholic institutions to act in a similar way to them regarding complaints.It could be possible for former members of Opus Dei to obtain medical evidence showing exploitation, to build a case of systemic coercion across different types of Opus Dei members and across the world. This is realistic, in my opinion, but would require a lot of work and money.

How did Opus Dei respond officially to these court hearings and Catherine’s ultimate victory?

Opus Dei made no statement following its defeats in 2013 and 2016. Online searches and press releases on the official Opus Dei website (opusdei.org - search term “Tissier”) focus on the 2011 court decision, which Opus Dei won, not its eventual defeat. In May 2024, the English, Spanish, and German versions only had press releases from 2011, explaining Opus Dei’s position and its victory on all points, with no later press releases. So Opus Dei members who speak these languages, directed to its website, would think Opus Dei won on all the points on which it lost in the end. If they checked the French version, they would also see plenty of 2011 articles but also a timeline with brief mentions of all four hearings plus the request for the appeal, but not the rejection of the appeal - see Procès opposant Catherine Tissier à son ancienne école hôtelière - Opus Dei . This timeline mentions that two numeraries who ran Dosnon were fined but not the much larger fine against ACUT, the Opus Dei-controlled employer of Catherine, and not the civil compensation paid to Catherine. So even French speakers relying on Opus Dei’s official information would be minimally informed and probably think the mistakes were those of individual numeraries, not Opus Dei institutions. Former members say anecdotally that Opus Dei leaders direct members to their official press articles on controversies about Opus Dei, which would have the effect of boosting the articles’ search engine rankings. There is no press statement from Opus Dei available as at May 2024, despite the continued availability of the 2011 press releases on its website. Relying on Opus Dei press statements would seriously mislead readers on the final outcome of this case.

What other information on the court action is available online?

You would need to go to a Reddit forum called opusdeiexposed (reddit.com), or speak French, and/or dig hard to get beyond the 2011 articles that appear high up on internet searches.

Searching for “catherine tissier opus dei”, the top results on an English Google search in May 2024 are:

from the Opus Dei website, 2011 “French court completely absolves Dosnon school”
various other press articles on the 2011 case
an article in “Paris Match” after 2013 appeal, in French
articles from the Reddit sub (forum) www.reddit.com giving the full picture that we are also giving here

Further down the results is a page in French from “opus-info”, a website with negative information on Opus Dei. It has pdfs of the original 2013 and 2016 appeal decisions in French. https://www.opus-info.org/index.php/Catherine_TISSIER_gagne_son_proc%C3%A8s_en_appel_contre_l%E2%80%99Opus_Dei We are heavily indebted to Opus Info for providing this.

The French Wikipedia entry for “Opus Dei” has a summary of the court hearings https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_Dei#Proc%C3%A9dure_judiciaire_impliquant_une_association_li%C3%A9e_%C3%A0_l'Opus_Dei_en_France

Some organizations try to launder their stained reputations with search engine manipulation techniques that are widely considered to be unethical, though not illegal.

References

1. 2016 decision - original French court document

2. English translation of 2016 decision

3. 2013 decision - original French court document

4. English translation of 2013 decision

5. https://www.reddit.com/r/opusdeiexposed Search “Tissier” for related posts and discussions

6. opusdei.org - change language setting and search “Tissier” for press releases in different languages

7. Press releases from opusdei.org 16 and 26.03.24 Opus Dei - Press room

8. Timeline from opusdei.org in French Procès opposant Catherine Tissier à son ancienne école hôtelière - Opus Dei

9. “International Ecclesiastical Complaint against Opus Dei”

10. Wikipedia article on “Opus Dei” - French version, showing court timeline

May 2024