Question IX: Whether it is lawful to reveal someone's hidden crime to escape torture

I SUPPOSE, that what is revealed in confession can never be told, even with death otherwise imminent. But SECRET crimes revealed to me in secret outside confession for the public harm, I can tell to the Judge, without danger even of irregularity, on account of a death about to follow someone, provided I protest that I denounce them to guard against evils without shedding of blood. Thus many Doctors at Fagundez lib. VIII. cap. V. num. 5.

But in the question proposed, they commonly affirm that a crime known in secret outside confession can be revealed, if grave loss impends over an innocent neighbor, provided a fraternal correction has gone before, if that is hoped to be of profit. Thus St. Thomas 2. 2. q. 70. art. I. ad 2., and many others at Fagundez cap. VI. num. 7.; Bassaeus, V. Reus, num. 8.

Then they say that it is lawful, in order to avoid tortures and other grave evils, to tell an occult sin that has been heard, even if the death of the perpetrator follows. Thus Lessius lib. II. cap. XI. de detract. dub. 8. from num. 54.; Fagundez num. 9.; and Tanner indicates it, num. 149., with others.

But he WARNS first, that care must be taken not to include the secrets of Princes, whose revelation brings grave evils: Thus he admonishes with many others.

He ADDS second, that otherwise a private secret is not to be revealed, if it has been received by force and fraud. The same teach Sotus lib. V. quaest. X. art. II.; Sayrus lib. XI. c. 3.; Navarrus summa cap. 28. num. 54. Moreover, that to reveal a secret without cause is mortal, St. Thomas the Doctor teaches in the Speculum animae, cap. primo, §. Machinatio, at the end.

They DISPUTE here about the opening of letters. They ANSWER that to open letters without grave cause — for instance, a probable opinion that snares are being laid for oneself in them — is mortal, if you recognize with probability that they contain a grave matter; but not if you open ordinary letters out of levity. See Fagundez cap. IX. at the end.

I indeed judge the opening of letters to be a most grave matter, since the confidence of human intercourse between the absent is destroyed, the peace of the Republic is disturbed, enmities are aroused. And since it must always be presumed that letters are sent for weightier causes, they are not to be opened except rashly.