136. On the Sacramental Seal

1. Landulphus, a parish priest, is often consulted by his vicars, with the license of penitents, concerning the same cases of conscience occurring to them in confessions, yet not set forth with the same circumstances. Hence he is very doubtful, when the case has already been proposed to him in one way and then is set forth in another way with other circumstances, what he himself ought to respond, and whether he can use in his response the knowledge which he already has of the Case. Indeed, while he himself hears confessions, he often notes that a case which a penitent sets forth to him has already been set forth several times to him by his vicars, with other quite diverse circumstances. Hence he is still more doubtful whether he himself can respond according to the knowledge which he already has of the case, and manifest it to the penitent, so that the penitent can better set forth the case and he himself resolve it.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. "When someone has been consulted concerning the same sin by two confessors, to whom the penitent has confessed separately, he must speak with each as if he did not know it by another way; nor can he say to one any other diverse circumstance which he learned from the other, but he must respond to each according to those things which each narrates. Yet he will be able to say conditionally, if the matter were not in this way, but in another diverse way with such a circumstance, it would have to be said otherwise. But he must do this very thing cautiously and with the seal preserved." Lugo, d. 23, n. 30. St. Alphonsus 648 indeed thinks the opposite true, because just as it is certainly believed that the penitent wills no other counsel except right counsel, so it is certainly presumed that he wills that the doctor himself speak freely about all things which he knows from the first confessor and which pertain to furnishing right counsel. But this presumption is very uncertain; for in this matter the presumption is, as the same Holy Doctor asserts in the place cited, that the penitent gives license with every limitation with which he can. And certainly the matter is not without burden for the penitent and hatred of the sacrament, if the confessor, observing that more is answered to him than the matter set forth would require, should thence come into suspicion concerning the sincerity of his penitent. But if the penitent then performs confession before this doctor whom his confessor had consulted, "can this man speak about those sins which he previously knew by knowledge derived from the first confession? For this does not seem to be against the seal, since he does not speak outside the sacramental forum; but the matter always remains under the same seal of confession. Moreover, I would not dare to concede this license, because, although each is a seal of confession, nevertheless it is not of confession made to the same confessor; for this priest knew the sins of the former confession as one holding something on the part of the prior confessor and in his name; wherefore he shared in the seal and the obligation of that man." Lugo, d. 29, n. 128; I. M. 837.

2. Xaverius, a confessor, asks: After the penitent has manifested that he confessed all his sins, which were many and grave, and narrated them publicly to others, can he himself by his own authority confirm the matter, and thus manifest his true conversion to the glory of God?

R. These things of Busembaum apud St. Alphonsus 638 pertain to our matter: "The seal is not broken ... if you use knowledge acquired outside confession, indeed if you reveal the very sin which became known to you from elsewhere, provided you do not report any circumstance known from confession alone, nor more certainly than you know outside confession; in which Case great caution is needed, and it is safest to be silent." - Layman, l. 5, tr. 6, n. 9, has these things: "It has not been granted to the confessor to elicit public sins, insofar as they have been received from confession," and he says this is common doctrine. "Outside confession," says Busembaum again apud St. Alphonsus 651, "with the license of the penitent, there can be dealing concerning things heard in confession either with the penitent himself, or with any other person, although it is dangerous ... Concerning which license it is required 1.º that it be formal and express, for a presumed, tacit, interpretative, virtual license, even for the good of the penitent himself, does not suffice ... It is the same whether that license is given by word or by deed, which indeed is equivalent to express concession; for example, if the penitent outside confession begins to speak with the confessor about things said in confession, for then Aversa, Tanner, etc., teach that this man can proceed. Yet Lugo well observes, says St. Alphonsus, that in that case the seal still perseveres with respect to others, because, although the penitent speaks outside confession, nevertheless he is judged not to furnish the confessor any license other than one dependent on the confession performed." Wherefore, as regards the proposed question, if the penitent truly and expressly gives permission to the confessor that he may manifest his confession and confirm his conversion to God, if the confessor does this, he does not act against the seal, but the matter is very dangerous. But if the penitent does not truly and expressly give this license to the confessor, although he himself then publicly manifests his sins, the confessor cannot use the knowledge received through confession and speak according to it to confirm those things which he hears from others.

3. "You set forth that some missionaries, when they know the number of those whom in confession they have permitted to approach Holy Communion, without interrogating the penitents, place the same number of particles to be consecrated; and you ask whether this practice is to be prohibited. No one fails to see that missionaries acting thus use knowledge acquired in confession, which is expressly forbidden by the laws of the Church; nor is this depraved manner of acting efficacious for keeping away the unworthy: for an unworthy person can approach among the first to the sacred synaxis, from which a worthy person would be excluded from Communion for an unworthy one, with the added danger also of further scandal to the prejudice of sacramental confession. Wherefore this abuse is altogether to be removed." S. C. de P. F., Feb. 29, 1836; Collectan., n. 939.

4. In a certain parish, so that children might be duly admitted to first Communion, they were directed to certain determined confessors, who, having heard the confession of the same children, according to a judgment prudently formed by themselves concerning the dispositions of each one, would freely admit them or exclude them from first Communion, handing to them admission cards to be shown to the parish priest. Was this done licitly?

R. Altogether illicitly. For it is sufficiently clear that in the Case the judgment concerning the due disposition of the children for first Communion is simply committed to the confessor, and that the confessor forms that judgment from the confession heard. But when the confessor, from this judgment concerning the state of the soul of the children, handed or did not hand to those same children the card of admission to first Communion, thus distinguishing those to be admitted and those to be excluded, it is evident that there is had thence an illicit use of knowledge received through confession. S. Poenit., June 8, 1843. Cf. Nouvelle Revue Theolog., vol. 21, p. 52 ff.

5. Hannibal, a confessor, asks what must be thought about those things which the distinguished theologian D'Annibale has in nn. 359 and 363. There he hands down the following: "1.º There is no scandal which it is lawful to prevent or repair with a breaking of the seal; for example, if from confession you learned that Seius and Caia, wishing to contract marriage, are father and daughter. Nevertheless our doctors commonly teach that it is wrong, for the sake of preserving the seal, to do something which by its nature is evil, such as to fornicate, to lie. Let others solve this knot."

2.º "If from the confession of Lucius you learned that ambushes are being prepared for you, when you are about to travel, in such a place, can you defer the journey or go by another road, if from this those who are preparing them can deservedly suspect that you received this from the confession of Lucius?"

3.º "That you can deny a sword to him who has confessed to you that he wishes to kill you, when he asks it back from you for the sake of this thing, was once the most common opinion. Otherwise, if he should signify to you in confession that on that day he is going to give you poison at supper, and after confession invites you to supper, you will have to go! From your confession I learned that you, my confessor, are not a priest; I am not compelled to return to you, even if you well understand why I do not return, unless from this some harm or disgrace should redound to you. If I received from you in confession that Seius was baptized with wine, who would say that I cannot rebaptize Seius, because this will be unpleasant to you? Indeed Sporer, n. 870, thinks that if from your confession I learned that Osius is most unworthy of a benefice, I can use this knowledge, even if you bear it ill, if nothing of yours is involved."

R. To the 1st. There is no difficulty in solving that knot. For the aforesaid not preventing scandal is not a sin in the Case. But if fornication and lying are evil by their nature, the seal of confession certainly does not oblige one to sin.

To the 2nd. Negatively. For evidently there is had an indirect revelation of sin and a violation of the seal. But it is supposed, as is clear, that Lucius manifested those ambushes in confession not as a matter not pertaining to confession, but as a matter belonging to the confession itself, by accusing, for example, his sin of complicity. Hence neither could the confessor abstain from the celebration of Mass when he knows in confession from some accomplice of the crime that poison has been poured into the cruet with wine, if the other accomplices would understand that the crime had been revealed by some one of their associates. Lig. 659.

To the 3rd. It does not first appear how these things cohere with the general doctrine of the distinguished author handed down in the same n. 363 a little before. For the distinguished author teaches that without doubt there is a violation of the seal if from the use of knowledge of confession a burden of the penitent follows, immediately adding: "But we must take as burden whatever can be not only harmful to the penitent, but annoying or unpleasant, whether by right or by injury." Then, as the same distinguished author has, n. 359: "In doubts here the safer things and those more favorable to the seal are always to be held, and not only in a doubt of fact ... but more truly also in a doubt of law." Since, therefore, there are various opinions with regard to the proposed Cases, how can someone embrace in practice the opinion against the seal? Besides, if in that Case of returning the sword and avoiding the poison there is not had a violation of the seal, supposing that a sacramental seal is truly present in that twofold Case, how is this violation had, on the contrary, as D'Annibale himself asserts in the same n. 363, "if your servant confessed to you that at night he receives a female friend at home, or plunders your property, and you at night closed the doors, or watched over your property more diligently, or in the confession itself commanded him to depart from service: inasmuch as the master, not the confessor, would command"? If these things redound to the burden or reproach of the penitent, why not those? And as regards the other Case of the confessor who is not a priest, "more commonly and more truly," says St. Alphonsus 660, "Lugo, Mazzotta, etc., hold the opposite. The reason is that in such an omission, although there is not present a revelation of the seal, nevertheless there is always present a certain hateful reproach of the penitent. Nor then is it necessary for you to simulate the sacrament ... but you can simply manifest some sin to that fictitious priest or confessor without intention of absolution." And that certain hateful reproach of the penitent is had by the very fact in the Case of Seius baptized by that penitent with wine. "Nor do the harms," says the same D'Annibale in the place cited, "of another, or of the republic, or of religion excuse; for example, to remove from the office of confessor him whom you know not to be a priest, or not to choose him for this office which you were going to give." But as regards the last Case, there is had hatred of the sacrament; for, if the faithful knew this, that from their confession another could suffer harm, they would be removed from confession. - G. 780, 784; I. M. 844, 845, 851, 858.

5. A rector of a seminary asks: Whether from confessions heard he can at least be enlightened in the right government of the same seminary, as the author of the additions to Wigandt affirms?

R. "The author of the Additions to Wigandt is by no means to be heard, saying that granted that from the knowledge of confession alone a superior cannot be directed to external government, nevertheless he will be able from it to receive light and to take another external pretext or color for denying an office." Lig. 657; I. M. 859.

6. Eugenia, confessing several sins of impatience, anger, and also imprecations, manifested to the confessor the extreme misery in which her whole numerous family was secretly placed, although it was not of common condition. Immediately after Eugenia a most pious matron confesses, and when the confession has been completed offers the confessor a note for a thousand lire to be spent on some pious work or alms. Going into the sacristy, the confessor sees Eugenia still kneeling before the confessional seat, and, passing by her and saying nothing to her, hands her that note wrapped in another paper, as though it were some letter.

It is asked: 1.º How is the seal of sacramental confession violated? - 2.º Whether the use of sacramental knowledge is licit? - 3.º Whether the confessor acted rightly in the Case?

R. To the 1st. The sacramental seal can be violated both directly and indirectly. Direct violation of the sacramental seal is had by manifesting those things which are the object of this seal, so that the penitent also becomes known. Indirect violation of the seal is had by saying or doing, or even by not saying or not doing something, whence either some sin of the penitent is deduced, or a burden of the penitent follows, or hatred against confession for the faithful follows.

To the 2nd. The use of knowledge of sacramental confession is illicit whenever from it there follows either revelation of some sin of the penitent, or some burden of the penitent, or hatred against confession. Outside these cases it is not illicit.

To the 3rd. In the Case the confessor does not seem to have violated the seal of sacramental confession. He certainly uses knowledge of confession; but that use certainly neither contains the revelation of any sin, nor can the sin of the penitent be inferred from it. Likewise that use is not unto hatred of confession, since surely a use of this sort would not commonly keep the faithful away from confession. Finally, the aforesaid use brings no burden to the penitent. For, considering the prudent and discreet manner of handing that note to the penitent, and considering also that notable quantity of money, which perhaps could even be owed to that family from some hidden restitution to be made, certainly no injury to the penitent followed from this, no even tacit reproach, no shame for that penitent, no embarrassment. Who indeed would say that the penitent, opening that letter and finding a note for a thousand lire, would feel displeasure, and would not rather give thanks with grateful heart to God for a grace received even though not asked for?