XII. On the Various Duties of the Minister

What of the office of father? - The Confessor is a spiritual father, who gives spiritual life to the penitent, or restores and fosters it; for in the tribunal of penance he acts in place of the best parent of all, namely Christ himself, and therefore by penitents he is called by the sweet name of Father. But that which especially stands out in the true name of father is notable and inexhaustible charity. For what love is stronger than the love of a father? What love is truer, purer, more chaste, more constant, fuller of solicitude, and more foreign to one's own advantage, indeed more ready and prompt for every kind of privations and inconveniences? Therefore such must be the charity of the confessor, so that, clothed with the bowels of mercy of Christ Jesus, who came not to call the just but sinners, he may know how to deal diligently, patiently, and meekly with sinners. Leo XII, in the Bull for the great Jubilee of the year 1825. Thus a good father will bear all things for his spiritual children: for Charity is patient..., bears all things..., endures all things. 1 Cor. 13:4, 7.

The Confessor must be full of charity toward penitents, both at the beginning, during the course, and at the end of Confession. - At the beginning, by receiving all kindly. Therefore those are most to be reproved who, setting aside men, especially the uneducated, and mothers of families, hear only the Confessions of young girls and devout women. Clearly such men hear Confessions not to please God, but to indulge their own temperament. L. Prax. 120. - During the course, by helping the penitent as much as he can, so that he may accomplish a good and salutary Confession. Therefore, if penitents do not seem sufficiently instructed, the confessor ordinarily also ought himself to examine them, because these, left to themselves alone, will not examine themselves better, and if they are dismissed, they will never return more disposed; indeed, deterred by the difficulty of examining conscience, they will easily abstain from Confession. And if much time must be spent by the confessor in disposing the penitent, let him indeed spend it, nor ought it be a concern to him that other penitents are waiting. - At the end, by efficaciously stirring up the penitent to sincere sorrow and purpose. And if the penitent does not seem sufficiently disposed, the confessor is bound to stir up sorrow and purpose in him, because one absolving the indisposed exposes the sacrament to danger of frustration, but if he dismisses him without absolution, he perhaps exposes him to the danger of remaining long in the state of mortal sin, or even of not returning any more. - L. 607, 608; Prax. 4, 120.

But this charity of the confessor must not be separated from prudence. Therefore "the confessor must be supremely cautious in receiving the Confessions of women..., he should regularly be rather stern than sweet in the confessional with younger women." L. Prax. 119. The same must be observed still more with spiritual persons, "with whom there is danger of greater attachment." L. ib. St. Augustine apud St. Thomas, Opusc. 64, de Famil. dom., etc., says: "Conversation with these women is to be brief and stern; nor, because they are holier, are they therefore less to be guarded against, for the holier they are, the more they entice." And St. Thomas adds: "Although carnal affection is dangerous to all, nevertheless it is more pernicious to them when they associate with a person who seems spiritual; for although the beginning seems pure, nevertheless frequent familiarity is a domestic danger, and the more this familiarity grows, the principal motive is weakened and purity is stained."

How widely this charity of the confessor extends must be taken from the very end of Confession, which is the spiritual salvation of the penitent. Therefore the temporal affairs of the penitent himself are foreign to the confessor; the spiritual and temporal affairs of others are also foreign. But to involve himself in these things is not only at times ill-considered and dangerous; it can also render the sacrament odious. - Constitution of Leo XII Caritate Christi, Dec. 25, 1825; Salvatori, Istruz. Prat. pei Confess. novelli; L. 421, 452, 478.

What of the office of physician? - The Confessor is a true physician of souls, since he must rescue them from the various diseases of sin, remove them from the depraved affections of the passions, and restore them to divine grace. Therefore the Confessor, therefore, as a skilled physician, must know the cause of the evil, heal it, and prevent relapse. - To know the cause of the disease. "For the Confessor, that he may meet the infirmities of his penitent with suitable remedies, the origin and cause of all his spiritual diseases must be known. Some inquire nothing beyond the species and number of sins; if they see the penitent disposed, they immediately absolve him; but if not, without spending one word they dismiss him at once, saying with averted eye: Depart from me, because I cannot absolve you. Good confessors proceed otherwise: for these first investigate the origin and gravity of the disease, by asking about the habit of sin, about occasions, about time, about place, about the persons with whom, and by what concurrence of circumstances. For in this way they will be better able to correct penitents, dispose them for absolution, and add salutary remedies." L. Prax. 6. - To heal the disease. "When the origin and gravity of the disease are known, the confessor should proceed to make the due admonitions. And although he ought, as father, to hear penitents with charity, nevertheless, as physician, he is bound, as much as is necessary, to admonish and correct them, especially those who, burdened by many mortal sins, rarely approach the sacrament of penance." L. ib. 7, 10.

To prevent relapse. The confessor will prevent relapse by assigning to the penitent remedies suited to the disease. But remedies are either general or particular.

General remedies are: pious prayer and love toward God; frequent invocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of the holy Guardian Angel, and of the patron Saint; frequency of the sacraments and Confession as soon as some mortal sin has been committed; consideration of the eternal truths, especially death and the last end, according to that saying: Remember your last things, and you will not sin forever, Ecclus. 7:40; remembrance of God present when temptation presses, saying: God sees me; evening examination of conscience with sorrow of soul and purpose; mental prayer and pious readings, especially for priests. - Particular remedies will be assigned according to the diversity of vices: for example, to him who is held by some hatred, let it be suggested, if this is prudently believed to be useful, that each day he commend to God the one whom he hates, reciting the Lord's Prayer for him, etc. And when he is troubled by the memory of the injury, let him remember the insults with which he himself has affected God. To him who has fallen into base sins, let it be enjoined that he avoid idleness, flee bad companions and depraved occasions. To him who has contracted a depraved habit over a long time in this vice, let it be prescribed that he avoid not only proximate occasions, but even certain remote ones, which for one so weak are like proximate occasions. But above all let the confessor see to it that this man communicate frequently; because the Eucharist is called: Wine bringing forth virgins. The confessor will assign other remedies to others according to his prudence, with the circumstances of occasions, persons, etc., having been considered. For prudence is the principal quality which ought to stand out in a physician. - L. ib. 15; La-Croix, l. 6, p. 2, n. 1786-1932.

What of those habituated to sin, those in occasions of sin, and recidivists? What of absolution to be given, denied, or deferred to them? - The diseases of the soul are sins, and their causes are contracted habits, occasions, and relapses; whence come those habituated or customary sinners, those in occasions, and recidivists. Those habituated or customary sinners are those who have contracted a habit of sinning or a custom of sin, into which however they have not yet fallen after Confession. But they are said to have contracted a habit or custom if regularly five times in a month, indeed even once, they are accustomed to relapse into the same sins. A recidivist is one who after Confession, although admonished, relapses into the same sins with no or almost no amendment. One in an occasion is one who is found in some external circumstance which, either from its own nature or from the frailty of the man who is found in it, entices or induces to sinning. One occasion is necessary, another voluntary; one is present or in esse, which someone has with himself, e.g., if someone keeps a concubine at home; another is absent or not in esse, which someone does not have, but finds when seeking it, e.g., if the concubine is in a neighboring or distant house; one is absolute with respect to all, another relative with respect to such a person; finally one is proximate, in which men commonly for the most part sin, another remote, in which men commonly for the most part do not sin. Therefore that occasion is certainly to be judged proximate in which there is no true probability of not sinning; on the contrary, that is remote in which there is no true probability of sinning. It is clear that various degrees exist between the two.

Neither habit, nor relapse, nor occasions import necessity of sinning, but they contain only danger of sinning. Hence the question is raised whether they can and should be absolved, and when and how often, before they have amended the habit, prevented relapse, or removed the occasion. The reason for the difficulty is the doubt about the sincerity of sorrow and purpose, which arises from the habit itself, relapse, or occasion. - The rigid wish them not to be absolved before the habit has been amended, relapse avoided, and the occasion removed. The lax wish them to be able to be absolved whenever they say that they are sorry from the heart. The moderate walk a middle way, which is broad. Several of these establish turns almost mathematically, namely once, twice, three times, four times, but not beyond, if they bring only ordinary signs of penance; otherwise, if they bring extraordinary signs. But all agree that absolution can be given the first time, and that those are more easily to be absolved who sin from the very frailty of nature, and who are found in a necessary occasion. But others, and we adhere to these, say that the whole matter is in the prudent estimation of the confessor, and is to be weighed and judged from the various circumstances of sins, persons, places, times, and causes. The following rules can be established. Salm., C. 5, n. 68; L. 452 ff., 459 ff.

The confessor can safely give absolution whenever he prudently judges the penitent to be sufficiently disposed, i.e., that "neither diligence in enumerating sins, nor sorrow in detesting them, was altogether lacking to the penitent." Roman Catechism, p. 2, n. 60. It is the certain doctrine of Catholic schools that any penitent can be absolved if he presents sufficient indications of true penance. A prudent judgment about sufficient disposition does not necessarily have to be a certain judgment, but only a probable one suffices. The reason is that the sacrament of penance scarcely admits a more certain judgment of this kind. St. Thomas, I-II, q. 91, a. 3; II-II, q. 47, a. 9 ad 2; III, q. 68, a. 4 ad 2. But this prudent judgment about the sufficient disposition of the penitent must be formed from the assertion of the penitent himself, from his Confession, from the manner of the Confession, and from the other circumstances of the same Confession; nor indeed can it be taken from elsewhere. - St. Thomas, 4, dist. 17, q. 5, a. 3, q. 6 ad 2; Opusc. 12; Quodl. 1, a. 12; L. 459, 460, 461.

The confessor can safely defer absolution when the penitent, although he is sufficiently disposed, is nevertheless not unwilling, and the delay would be more useful to him than absolution immediately given. The first reason is that on the one hand a sufficiently disposed penitent has a right to absolution; but on the other hand, if he is unwilling, delay, speaking of itself, will either in no way profit him, or certainly will not profit him more than absolution immediately given. For if the penitent has a desire of receiving absolution, he is offended by delay, and it is greatly to be feared that he will not return any more. Likewise, if he has a desire of receiving absolution, since this is a very good will, better hope indeed will be had from such a will aided by sacramental grace than if he is deprived of this. The second reason is that otherwise the penitent would be deprived without any sufficient reason of sacramental grace, which is effective both for remitting and for preventing sins.

But that absolution can absolutely be deferred to a penitent, although sufficiently disposed, and even without his consent, is clear first by reason: namely because, although a sufficiently disposed penitent has a right to absolution, nevertheless he does not have a right to obtain it immediately; especially if delay seems useful for fulfilling some obligation, e.g., of restitution, for conceiving a greater horror concerning committed sins, and for strengthening more and more the constancy of a serious will not to sin any more. For it belongs to the confessor as judge to determine when and how the sentence of absolution is to be pronounced. But the confessor is not only judge, but father, teacher, and physician. And therefore, as father, he can before absolution put forward an admonition and spiritual exhortation, by which he may instruct and arm the penitent against temptations. Likewise, as teacher, before absolution he can teach the penitent whom he sees wrapped in much ignorance, which otherwise could lead him into many sins. Similarly, as physician, he can defer absolution when he rightly fears that the penitent now absolved will easily not fulfill some grave obligation, or will easily relapse immediately into the same crimes, unless by the very difficulty and delay of absolution the penitent better recognizes the gravity of sin and the necessity of amendment, becomes more cautious, and is confirmed in the purpose of not sinning. The experience of many weak penitents supports this, who, by this remedy prudently applied, are usually cured in a short time; and for recidivists and for those in occasions it seems more necessary and useful, because in this way they better conceive the necessity of perseverance in the purpose of not sinning. The authority of theologians is added; for very many and grave theologians teach the utility of sometimes deferring absolution.

The utility required for deferring absolution to a penitent otherwise sufficiently disposed must be notable; and consequently absolution must be deferred only for a short time. The reason is that it is altogether grave to remain in the state of mortal sin even for a few days; and, speaking of itself, absolution immediately given is more profitable than its delay. - For a short time, i.e., for some hours, for a day, for two or three days, for a week, at most for fifteen days. But this remedy of deferring absolution is not only useful, but simply necessary, and the confessor not only can but also must apply it when it is necessary for testing the sincere sorrow and purpose of the penitent, about which there is not sufficient evidence, and about whose sufficient disposition there is doubt. - Salm., c. 5, p. 4, n. 68; L. 461-464; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 25, a. 1 ad 4.

Whenever the penitent is sufficiently disposed, and no notable utility is present from delay of absolution, the confessor is absolutely bound to give it immediately. Whenever grave harm will follow for the penitent from absolution denied or delayed, absolution is to be given to him conditionally, if he is doubtfully disposed. The first reason is that absolution must be granted from justice, and under grave obligation, to every penitent duly confessed and disposed. Nor indeed is there any reason for delay, which could be no other than the utility of the penitent himself, which in this case is had rather from absolution immediately given. "Suarez, Sanchez, etc., say that to deny absolution in light matter does not exceed venial sin." L., H. A., tr. 16, n. 118. The second reason is the common axiom: Sacraments are for men. When necessity stands, provision is made for the salvation of man in the best way in which it can be done; nor from this would there be any irreverence toward the sacrament or other inconvenience. - L. 431, 432, 462; l. 3, n. 682; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 18, a. 4.

When the penitent does not wish to fulfill a grave obligation which he has, when he does not have sincere sorrow for committed sins, nor a purpose of not sinning henceforth, the confessor is then bound to deny absolution. To these indeed, and to these alone, absolution is to be denied absolutely. The reason is clear, because these, and these alone, are unworthy of absolution. Sin cannot be remitted to him who wishes to persevere in sin. Leo XII, Encyclical Letter Caritate Christi; Roman Ritual, de Sacram. poenit.

As regards recidivists, there is no other special doctrine, different from the preceding, which is general and comprehends all cases. Therefore, if the confessor from all the circumstances of the Confession prudently judges the penitent to be duly disposed, he can absolve him; nor here and now is it necessary that he judge that he will not relapse any more, otherwise very many could not be absolved, concerning whom certainly the confessor, while he absolves them, cannot form this judgment, that henceforth, namely for the whole time of future life, they will no longer sin gravely. Not future amendment, but present sorrow and purpose, are the necessary dispositions for absolution. If thus far the penitent has broken faith, this is not a reason why at present he cannot be absolved, if he is prudently judged to be duly disposed; it can only be a sufficient reason why the confessor either doubts the legitimate disposition of the penitent, or even is persuaded that he truly lacks the aforesaid disposition. And in this case of recidivists, although they appear disposed, delay of absolution can certainly at times be especially useful, as has already been said; to whom, moreover, frequent approach to the sacraments is also in itself especially useful, if indeed they are duly disposed for them. And thus in the Roman Ritual, de Sacram. poenit., it is said: "For those easily falling back into sins it will be most useful to counsel them to confess often, and, if it is expedient, TO COMMUNICATE." But whenever the penitent exhibits extraordinary signs of sorrow even after relapse, he can safely be absolved. The reason is that then, ordinarily at least speaking, it is more expedient that absolution not be deferred. Likewise he can safely be absolved if absolution cannot easily be deferred, lest he remain long in the state of mortal sin.

But before the confessor absolves such a one, he will take care to dispose him more certainly and fruitfully for receiving absolution. But if he appears only doubtfully disposed, then it will be not only useful, but necessary to defer absolution, unless a grave reason presses, in which case absolution can be given only conditionally. Toletus, l. 5, c. 13; Suarez, d. 32, s. 2; L. 459-464; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 25, a. 1 ad 4.

The same must consequently be said about those in occasions. The common and universal rule is that he who is only in a remote occasion can be absolved, if indeed he is otherwise duly disposed, but not he who is in a free proximate occasion which he does not wish to leave. The first reason is that otherwise we would all have to leave the world. The second reason is that he who wishes to remain in that moral danger of falling does not seem to have an efficacious purpose of not sinning, unless he has extraordinary sorrow and purpose, or proposes to apply other remedies by which the occasion from proximate becomes remote. Lugo, d. 14, n. 151. - When the occasion is necessary and cannot be left without scandal, grave infamy, or great spiritual or temporal detriment, then he licitly remains in the danger which is necessary, provided that meanwhile he is prepared to use the prescribed means, and can hope for divine help in resisting. The reason is that no one is bound to the impossible, whether physically or morally, and besides an occasion of sin is not of itself sin, nor does it place a man in the necessity of sinning; and, in the case, the will of using the prescribed means makes it remote. So the doctors commonly, L. 455, and St. Alphonsus 456 calls this opinion most probable. Suarez, d. 32, s. 2, n. 4; Lugo, d. 13, n. 160.

If one who was absolved in a voluntary occasion, because he sincerely promised that he would remove it, or in a necessary occasion, because he sincerely promised that he would apply the remedies prescribed by the confessor, afterward falls back into the same sins, practically speaking he is not again to be absolved before he actually exercises an effort both of removing the occasion in the former case and of actually applying in the latter the remedies prescribed by the confessor; not because he absolutely cannot even at present have sincere sorrow and purpose, but because from this the confessor can easily prudently come into suspicion about the sincerity of the sorrow and purpose, L. 505 at the end; and because prudence requires that, although the sorrow is sincere and the purpose sincere, the weak will of the penitent, especially if the occasion is in esse, be aided also by this means of delaying absolution, which in the case can be very useful, and in fact often is. Except, unless the penitent gives extraordinary signs of sorrow, or there is an urgent cause, e.g., the mark of infamy in omitting Communion, if he cannot return to the same confessor, or only after a long time. And in this, if the present disposition appears morally certain, absolution is to be given absolutely; but if doubtful, it can be given only conditionally. - Suarez, d. 32, s. 2; L. 452-458; Elbel, de Actib. human., 193 ff.; E. M.

What of the office of teacher? - The office of teacher comprises two things: the knowledge of the confessor himself, and the obligation of teaching the penitent.

What of the knowledge of the confessor? - The Confessor is bound under grave obligation to know all those things which are required for duly discharging his office. The reason is that otherwise a confessor of this kind exposes himself to evident danger of performing so grave an office badly, with injury to the sacrament and great detriment of souls. - Yet the Confessor is not bound to have so perfect a knowledge that he can always immediately and by himself solve all doubts which occur; but it suffices that he can do this in cases commonly occurring, and that concerning the more difficult ones he at least knows how to doubt. For greater knowledge can be had only with more difficulty, since even the more learned themselves cannot immediately solve all cases. Nor is the confessor bound to discern concerning each sin accused whether they are mortal or not; since this is often impossible. But it suffices that he hear each thing as it was done, and judge about them in the obvious and natural sense, both according to common principles and according to the circumstances of things explained by the penitent, and know how to apply a suitable remedy. "Salmanticenses, etc., rightly note that the confessor is not bound to form a certain judgment about each sin, but only about obvious and clear ones." L. 500. - Lugo, d. 21, n. 70, 71; L. 626, 627.

Resolutions: Every Confessor is bound to know all those things which regard the validity, substance, integrity, and effect of the sacrament of penance, and those things which are required for its licit administration, both on his own part and on the part of the penitent. - He must also know the common and proper obligations of states, the various species of sins, their circumstances changing the species, the principles of discerning between mortal and venial sins, and what things are mortal and venial in the individual precepts, at least according to general principles and the common opinion of theologians.

Likewise which acts are valid and licit. The reason is clear, because he must know that concerning which he must judge; otherwise he will not be able to render an equitable judgment. - Therefore he must also know reserved cases, and the censures in force, impediments of marriage, conditions of contracts, the various causes of restitution, the roots and occasions of sins, the remedies to be brought to them, and salutary and suitable satisfactions to be imposed. Therefore the confessor sins who knows that the aforesaid knowledge is lacking to him, even if from charity alone and obedience he receives Confessions. Nor does the approbation of the Bishop excuse him of itself; for this does not give the knowledge due from the nature of the matter, nor supply its defect. Except the case of necessity. - The superior also sins who gives an ignorant confessor permission to receive Confessions, because he consents to and cooperates with his sin. Again except the case of necessity. - The penitent himself also sins who knowingly chooses a confessor ignorant with respect to himself; because he does not wish, as he ought, to be directed in the way of salvation, and thus undergoes grave spiritual harm. Yet if the penitent is in good faith, the Confession will be valid, because on the part of the penitent an integral declaration of sins and due disposition of soul intervenes; on the part of the confessor there intervenes at least knowledge of the sins under the confused notion of sin, which suffices for the matter of the sacrament. Likewise except unless the penitent is such that by his own learning he can supply the ignorance of the confessor. For knowledge is not necessary to a judge for his sentence to be valid, but jurisdiction is. - Experience cannot supply knowledge, but only helps it. Therefore every confessor is bound to apply himself diligently to the study of moral theology, and, as St. Liguori asserts, H. A. 100, "he must never interrupt that study." - Lugo, d. 21, n. 70 ff.; L. 627, 628, H. A. 100.

What of the obligation of teaching penitents? - The confessor is bound to teach penitents all those things which pertain to receiving the sacrament here and now duly. The reason is that, since the priest is the minister of the sacrament, he must procure its valid and licit reception, and therefore hand on the instruction here and now necessary. - He must teach penitents when he notices that someone is ignorant of something from those things which are necessary for living as a Christian, such as, for example, his own obligations. - Yet of himself and strictly he is not bound to instruct them about all things which they themselves ought to know and can learn elsewhere. The reason is that the office of teacher in a confessor of itself pertains only to the right administration of the sacrament of penance. Yet per accidens an obligation from charity could be present, when the penitent could acquire this knowledge for himself, either by himself or through another, only with very great difficulty.

This obligation of charity is not special to confessors, but common to all who know the need of a neighbor and can provide for him without grave inconvenience. A special obligation is present in parents, teachers, and pastors, who owe this from office. - L. 607.

Must the confessor admonish the penitent if he is in ignorance? - Resp. In the affirmative, if the ignorance seems vincible, i.e., if the confessor notices that the penitent doubts in such a way that good faith is already lacking. The reason is that in making the admonition no danger threatens; but otherwise the penitent, acting with that doubt, is not free from sin. - If the ignorance is invincible, a distinction must be made. The admonition is to be made if there is question of a matter necessary by necessity of means; otherwise the penitent is certainly indisposed. If there is question of other matters, affirmatively, if the admonition will be useful. The reason is that this is required from the general precept of charity and from the office of teacher which the confessor has.

If the admonition will not be useful, although there is question of repairing the harm of a third private person, e.g., of restitution of a debt, it is either simply to be omitted or deferred to a better occasion. The reason is that it would be useless to the creditor and harmful to the penitent. - If there is question of public harm, speaking of itself, the admonition is to be made. The reason is that the public good is to be preferred to the private good of the penitent, and the confirmation and propagation of evil is to be impeded, lest others think that what is not corrected is lawful, and themselves also do it, "since someone thinks that those things are lawful for him which he observes to be done with impunity by those who frequent the sacraments of the Church." Benedict XIV, Encyclical Apostolica Constitutio, June 26, 1749, § 20. Besides, there is hope that, with God's grace helping, the admonition made will be useful to the public good, even as regards the part of the penitent himself, if he himself brings a sincere will to receive the sacrament of penance, if not immediately, perhaps after some time, after he has seriously considered the matter. Speaking of itself, because if perhaps greater harm, both private and public, were feared from the admonition made; because, for example, a penitent not very fervent and pious would therefore be entirely turned away from the Church, and because of his influence would bring greater harm upon the Church, it will belong to prudence to dissemble, permitting the lesser evil so that the greater may be avoided. Then indeed that holds which St. Alphonsus 610 calls a most valid reason, "namely that of two evils the lesser is to be permitted, that the greater may be avoided." - L. 609, 614, 615, 694; l. 3, n. 682; Lugo, d. 22, n. 29, 30, 37.

Resolutions: Therefore the penitent is to be admonished: Whenever he himself asks about the malice of some matter, because since he doubts about the lawfulness of the matter, he is already not in invincible ignorance. - Whenever the silence of the confessor would confirm him in the purpose of doing an evil thing, by thus tacitly approving the error. - Whenever his ignorance concerns the first principles of natural law or their proximate conclusions; because such ignorance, if it is possible, cannot be invincible for long. - Whenever, if the admonition were omitted, the penitent would be going to remain formally in a proximate occasion of sinning. - Lugo, d. 22, n. 29, 37; Sanchez, de Matr., l. 2, 38, n. 11; L. 609, 615, 616; Ithur., Cas. 31.

Must the admonition be made in doubt whether it will be useful or harmful? - What preponderates is to be chosen in the case, as is commonly handed down. Therefore: Affirmatively, if it is more probably going to be useful; otherwise, if it is more probably going to be harmful. In a doubt equal on both sides, generally speaking, formal evils are rather to be avoided than material ones. Hence regularly one must be silent when it is dangerous to speak. - La-Croix 1759; Lugo, d. 23, n. 31; L. 614, 916.

Must a spouse be admonished about the invalidity of marriage because of a hidden impediment which the confessor detects? - Resp. In the negative, generally speaking, unless a dispensation can be immediately and easily obtained from the Pope or Bishop. The reason is that very great inconveniences would usually follow from this, e.g., danger of infamy, scandal, quarrels, incontinence, etc.; and consequently material fornication would become formal. But can the confessor oblige the spouse ignorant of the impediment and denying the debt to render it? Resp. In the affirmative. The reason is that, while the spouse's persuasion stands that the marriage is valid, that spouse is bound to render the debt, so that he may follow the dictate of conscience. - Elbel 471; Sanchez, de Matr., l. 2, d. 38, n. 8; L. 601.

Must a penitent about to contract marriage be admonished about an unknown impediment? - Generally speaking, the admonition is to be made. The reason is that after marriage ignorance can cease without great difficulty, e.g., from the fact that consanguinity, affinity, etc., is discovered to exist between the spouses; and then there is easily danger of sinning formally, and very grave inconveniences can follow from this, namely scandals, quarrels, and perhaps even the separation of the spouses, etc. - Yet probably except the case in which no fruit at all is hoped from the admonition, nor can the impediment easily be detected; because it is better to permit material sin until a dispensation is obtained than to provide an occasion of certain formal sin. - La-Croix, l. 6, p. 2, n. 540; L. 612.

What of the office of judge? - Since the sacrament of penance was instituted in the manner of a judgment, as the penitent in this judgment is the accused, the accuser, and at the same time the witness, whence it is that he is regularly to be believed both for himself and against himself, so the confessor is the judge; and this is the principal and proper office of the confessor. Hence it belongs to him to pronounce sentence, and before this to instruct the cause by judging about sins. - As regards pronouncing the sentence, when absolution is to be given, deferred, or denied has already been said. Cf. 809. Likewise whether and what penance is to be imposed has already been said. Cf. 725, 726. - As regards instructing the cause, the confessor is bound to render judgment about sins, and consequently he must hear and understand them, without however making a reflex judgment about them concerning their intrinsic nature, genus, species, object, end, circumstances, etc. But he must render judgment about them according to the obvious sense of the Confession made and of its circumstances. He is therefore bound besides to question penitents about the species, number, and circumstances changing the species, about the causes of sins, about habit and proximate occasions, as often as he reasonably presumes, or prudently doubts, that those things had to be declared and are not sufficiently declared. The reason is that the confessor, as minister of the sacrament, must procure its integrity, and as judge must acquire for himself the knowledge necessary for rendering an equitable judgment. This is clear also from the Fourth Lateran Council, and also from the Roman Ritual. - Yet the confessor is not bound to question the penitent except with some ordinary diligence. The reason is that the penitent himself is not bound to examine himself with the greatest, but only with moderate, that is ordinary, diligence. But the obligation of the confessor cannot be graver than that of the penitent, since the confessor is not bound to examine the penitent except secondarily, or in defect of him. Likewise the confessor is not bound to question penitents who, although uneducated, seem sufficiently instructed for their condition, diligent in confessing sins with circumstances according to their state and capacity. A fortiori it is not necessary to examine those who confess often and rarely sin gravely, such as devout persons, religious, and ecclesiastics, unless something necessarily to be explained seems to be omitted by them. - Cf. here n. 717, 749, 811, 822; L. 607, 617, 629, H. A. 103, Prax. 19, 20.

Note: The Confessor, insofar as he is judge, does not have authority to command the penitent anything whatever; but he has authority to command only as regards the satisfaction to be enjoined. Therefore obedience is owed to the confessor in other matters insofar as he prescribes to the penitent those things which some law, whether natural or positive, otherwise demands. Insofar as judge, the confessor takes cognizance only of the cause, so that according to the merit of the cause he may deny, impart, or defer absolution, and impose a suitable satisfaction. And from this it is that the confessor must then in some way at least remember the sins heard. Cf. n. 749. - Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 28, n. 5; de Poenit., d. 14, n. 171; L. 604, para. Ratio autem.

What of the practice of questioning? - Questioning must be moderate, as has just been said, cf. 819; and therefore the confessor must beware lest he be too anxious in questioning. Otherwise the questioning will be grave and burdensome both to himself and especially to the penitent, and consequently also Confession itself. - Questioning must besides be discreet, that is, the confessor must question with great prudence, carefully beware lest he ask about sins which probably were not committed, with the condition and capacity of the penitent, etc., considered; lest he ask about those things from which the penitent may learn to sin, or may suffer scandal; and lest he question too curiously or too lightly even in those things about which questioning is to be done. - Besides, questioning must be opportune, that is, be done at the time and in the manner in which it is fitting. Certain questions, if at times they seem to be asked, are to be asked before Confession, namely: since what time has he not confessed? whether he was absolved? whether he fulfilled the penance? whether he is at peace concerning his past life? Other questions concerning condition, state, age, etc., will more suitably be made, when occasion is given, in the course of Confession. Thus on the one hand every suspicion of curiosity and levity will be avoided, and on the other hand the penitent will answer more easily, since his confidence in the confessor has been increased more. - Roman Ritual; L. 607, 629, Prax. 21; Lugo, d. 16, n. 589 ff.

Resolutions: The confessor must be very cautious in questioning about the matter of lust, especially with women, adolescents, and children, who can suffer scandal much more easily. Hence the rule admitted by all must be carefully observed: In the matter of lust, it is much better to fall short in many things than to exceed in one thing, by reason of the integrity of Confession. Therefore in doubt whether in such a case you can or ought to question, one must always stand for the negative side; for it is a lesser evil that something be lacking to the integrity of Confession than to incur danger of a soul being lost. - But confessors err who wish always to make a certain judgment about the quality of sin, whether it is grave or light, and twist penitents so that they may know with what mind or with what conscience they did this; for these will often answer whatever happens to come into their mouth, so that a little later, when questioned about the same matter, they will deny what before they had affirmed. Otherwise, however, if they seem sufficiently instructed, or if there is doubt about full consent given to temptation. Generally, unless circumstances suggest otherwise, it can be presumed that the penitent apprehended the object of sin as it is evil in itself. - They err likewise who wish always to make a certain judgment about the number of sins. This is often very difficult; indeed at times it is impossible to define even a merely likely number. Then it will be better to know the state of the penitent, his customs, and occasions, than to torment him fruitlessly about the number, especially as regards the uneducated, internal acts, and sins of the mouth. - They err who, under pretext of frequent sacrilegious Confessions, practically change the accusation of the penitent into an inquisition by the confessor, not without danger of scandal. But falsely, in this age of ours, certain moderns generally affirm that frequency of sacrilegious Confessions, because of shame or negligence. Most experienced and most pious confessors testify altogether to the contrary.

What must the confessor do in doubt about the sincerity of the penitent? - This is the common rule and as it were the received axiom: The penitent must be believed when speaking both for himself and against himself. The reason is that the penitent in the sacred tribunal is at once the accused and the witness, his own accuser and advocate, and besides in doubt he must always be presumed truthful. Therefore after suitable questions the confessor must absolve the penitent who denies. - L. 630, 631.

What must the confessor do if he knows certainly that some sin is being kept silent or denied by the penitent? - If he knows outside Confession, of himself he must absolve the penitent who denies, because the penitent speaking for himself and against himself must be believed; nor of itself can the report of another create greater faith than the declaration of the penitent himself; nor therefore is the confessor bound to believe others more than the penitent himself. For if the penitent committed that sin, the confessor must presume that he has either forgotten his sin, or confessed it to another, or has a just cause for keeping it silent, or that rather the reporters were deceived.

If he knows it from the Confession of another, he must, lest the seal of Confession be violated, question only generally, as he otherwise would have done or ought to have done; but if the penitent, questioned, denies, let him answer nothing, but, if he can do this without suspicion, let him merely exhort him generally to open his conscience with all confidence. But whether the confessor must absolve such a penitent is disputed. St. Liguori, after relating the opinions of others, thus concludes: "La-Croix thinks better in my judgment, that in that case he should by no means absolve, but only pray something to conceal the denial of absolution." Suarez, de Poenit., d. 32, s. 3, n. 9, generally teaches: "However much the confessor may know the sin of the penitent from the report of others, he is bound in this judgment to believe the penitent himself more, because of the reason given." And generally St. Thomas also teaches the same, who besides notes the distinction between one speaking in Confession about himself and about others. Opusc. 7, al. 12, q. 6: "In Confession the sinner confessing must be believed both for himself and against himself; but against another he must in no way be believed; otherwise opportunity would be given to many for fictitious Confession and fraudulent defamation." On the contrary, when the penitent speaks about himself, thus St. Thomas in 4, d. 17, q. 3, a. 3, q. 5 ad 2: "As regards this knowledge, namely through manifestation in Confession, the priest cannot receive GREATER CERTAINTY than to believe the subject, BECAUSE THIS IS FOR HELPING HIS CONSCIENCE; whence in the forum of Confession a man is believed both for himself and against himself." And indeed the same reason entirely holds in this case as in the preceding one; nor consequently can the report of another of itself make greater force than the declaration of the penitent himself. - Of itself, for if the confessor certainly and evidently knows the sin of the penitent, e.g., because he saw it, "he is not bound so to stand by the words of the penitent that he cannot use his own knowledge to convict and rebuke the penitent himself." Suarez, l.c. Presumption indeed must yield to manifest truth. But the confessor, insofar as he is minister of the sacrament, must provide for its reverence; insofar as he is judge, he must loose or bind as justice and equity itself require. - St. Thomas, Quodl. 1, a. 12.

What of the office of the minister after Confession? - The confessor has a twofold obligation after Confession. The first per accidens, as regards defects committed that must be repaired. The other per se, as regards the seal to be preserved. L. 618, 634.

What of the obligation of correcting defects committed in Confession concerning the validity of the sacrament? - An error of this kind committed with grave fault, and with grave harm to the penitent supposed, must be repaired, even with grave inconvenience to the confessor, after permission has first been sought from the penitent. The reason is that the confessor, from office and from a quasi-contract entered into with the penitent, is bound to administer the sacrament duly to him. But because of the sacramental seal, without the penitent's permission, the confessor cannot admonish the penitent, if indeed a grave offense of the penitent would follow.

For in the case of absolution either in no way or invalidly imparted, there would truly be nothing against the seal if the confessor says: that an error intervened, that there is need for him to absolve again, etc. - But if the error was inculpable, or lightly culpable, the confessor is indeed bound from justice to repair and prevent the harm of the penitent, but with less inconvenience. The harm of the penitent can easily be repaired, e.g., if the penitent receives the Eucharist immediately after Confession or again confesses shortly. Therefore then the confessor is bound to repair the harm only under light obligation. But in very grave harm of the penitent, e.g., if he is in the article of death, or in grave danger of no longer confessing, nor receiving the Eucharist, or extreme unction, the confessor is likewise bound from justice, even with notable inconvenience to himself, to admonish the penitent and repair the error, by reason of the very grave and extreme necessity in which the penitent is placed. - L. 619, 622.

What of correcting errors concerning the accidents of the sacrament? - Such an error is not to be repaired outside Confession if the confessor in this has conducted himself only negatively, although culpably; the reason is that, if there is question of the integrity of Confession, the obligation of the integrity of Confession directly affects the penitent, not the confessor.

Hence although the confessor is bound to procure the integrity of the sacrament and the utility of the penitent in Confession, as minister of the sacrament and spiritual physician, nevertheless he is no longer bound to this once Confession has ended. Nor consequently is the confessor the cause that perhaps the penitent does not confess those sins; since he said nothing, did nothing, by which the penitent is moved to omit them, but the cause is solely the forgetfulness or inexperience of the penitent. Still less does the obligation of teaching the ignorant outside Confession press, lest a material violation of law follow. But it is grave of itself for the penitent that a discussion about it be instituted outside Confession. But if the penitent returns to confession, within it the confessor must prudently admonish the penitent about the defect committed. - But an error is to be repaired even outside Confession if he positively led the penitent into error; because, from natural law, each person must remove the cause of evil which he positively and voluntarily placed. Nevertheless the permission of the penitent is to be sought; and if the penitent denies it, the confessor is bound to nothing. But whether an error is to be repaired, whether in Confession or outside Confession, permission having first been sought from the penitent, even with grave inconvenience, or only with light inconvenience, or without any inconvenience, depends on the grave or light or no fault of the confessor in that error, on the grave or light or no detriment of the penitent from that error, and on the burden to the penitent himself in renewing discussion about Confession. All these things must be weighed on both sides. L. 620; Lugo, d. 22, n. 63, 75, 76.

To what is a confessor bound who unduly released a penitent from making restitution, or on the contrary obligated him to it? - If from malice or vincible ignorance, or grave negligence, he unduly released the penitent, he is bound to correct the error; but if he does not correct it, or the penitent, who otherwise would have restored, meanwhile has become unable to restore, the confessor himself is bound to restore in his place, because he violated the right of the creditor, namely by impeding the restitution owed to him. Likewise, if from malice or ignorance or grave negligence he obligated the penitent to undue restitution, he is bound from justice to retract the error; and if the penitent has already restored, he is bound to compensate him for the harm. - If inculpably or from light negligence he unduly obligated the penitent, or released him from the obligation, he is bound from justice to correct the error, but not with such grave inconvenience. The reason is that on the one hand each person is bound from justice to prevent his action, even an inculpable one, from causing another harm which he can easily prevent; and on the other hand, from light fault, or only material fault, ordinarily there does not arise an obligation with grave inconvenience. But if he neglects to admonish, when he can without grave inconvenience to himself, he is consequently bound to restitution. L. 621.

The admonition, in this case as in the following one, must be made in confession if the penitent returns to it. But if the penitent does not return, it is to be made outside confession, but only after permission has first been sought from the penitent. Cf. 827.

To what is a confessor bound who omitted to admonish a penitent about restitution to be made? - He is bound to admonish the penitent within Confession about the obligation, with some inconvenience, if no fault or only light fault intervened, at least by reason of charity; but with greater inconvenience, if in the omission he sinned gravely. In either case, however, this inconvenience is to be weighed against the grave harm of another. - More probably he is not bound to restore, even if by omitting the admonition he sinned gravely; the reason is that the confessor is not bound from justice to prevent the harm of him to whom restitution is owed. - L. 621; Lugo, d. 22, n. 67.

Can the confessor, without the penitent's permission, speak with him outside Confession about a defect committed in Confession? - Resp. In the negative, if the penitent has already departed; the reason is that that admonition outside Confession is burdensome to the penitent. Besides, after absolution the judgment is complete; nor does it matter that the admonition is made for repairing the defect of the same Confession. Nevertheless the confessor, even without permission having been sought, could abruptly reveal his error, saying, for example, that he had not absolved; by which means certainly neither is the seal broken, nor can there be a reasonable offense of the penitent. La-Croix 1776; L. 622.

What of the obligation of the seal of Confession? - The seal of Confession is the religious obligation of preserving secrecy concerning those things which are known from sacramental Confession, namely of manifesting them to others neither directly nor indirectly, nor, outside confession, to the penitent himself. - There is a most strict obligation of preserving the seal of Confession inviolably.

This is clear 1. From natural law, and indeed under a threefold title, namely from charity, from justice, and from religion. 2. From positive divine law, at least implicit; for from the institution of Christ, Confession, imposed on all from necessity of precept and from necessity of means, must be secret: therefore by that very fact there has been imposed by Christ on confessors the obligation of preserving the seal. 3.

From ecclesiastical law, the Fourth Lateran Council, C. 21, Omnis utriusque sexus, etc. - The obligation of the seal of Confession always presses in every case, so that in no possible case is it lawful to reveal anything heard and received in Confession. The reason is manifestly clear; because if some exception could be given, men would always fear lest such a sin be that cause for licitly breaking the seal, and consequently the sacrament of penance would become odious. Moreover no cause of obtaining good or avoiding evil can compensate for that evil of hatred of the sacrament. - The obligation of the seal arises from every and only sacramental Confession, namely one made with the intention of accusing oneself and obtaining absolution. From every, because then the whole reason for the precept is present; and this holds even if absolution has not been conferred for whatever reason, since Confession is made in order to receive absolution at some time. From only, because only sacramental Confession induces the obligation of the seal, since any other manifestation has no relation with the sacrament of penance. - L. 634, 636; E. M.

Resolutions: Confession which is knowingly made to a layman or to a priest lacking jurisdiction does not induce the obligation of the seal, but only of natural secrecy. It would have to be said otherwise if the priest is believed to be approved; because the Confession on the part of the penitent is truly sacramental. - If someone approaches a confessor with the intention of deceiving him, mocking him, dragging him into sin, or extorting something from him, he does not accuse himself in relation to the sacrament, and consequently there is no obligation of the sacramental seal. - If someone opens his conscience to a confessor without the will of receiving absolution, but in order to obtain counsel, or in order to satisfy in some way the command of a superior, only the obligation of natural secrecy presses, because this is not done in relation to absolution. - L. 640.

Is there smallness of matter in violation of the seal? - Resp. In the negative, at least in direct revelation. The reason is that matter, even the very lightest, includes the whole reason of the precept. At least in direct revelation; because if the danger of indirect revelation is very remote or little probable, lightness of matter can be given. For the revelation, if perhaps some would then follow, would have to be judged to follow by chance and per accidens.

Yet this very remote danger is a thing quite different from smallness of matter. - L. 635, 640; Lugo, d. 23, n. 71.

Is it lawful to use a probable opinion in the matter of the seal? - Resp. In the negative, as regards probability of fact and as regards probability of law. The reason is that it is not lawful to use a probable opinion to the prejudice of a certain right which another possesses. But harm would follow for the penitent, who would be drawn back from confession. And this harm must be altogether prevented.

Therefore the confessor is bound to the seal in doubt whether something was said by the penitent in relation to Confession; and where it is only speculatively probable that the seal is not violated by revealing this or that manifested by the penitent in Confession. St. Liguori 633 has these things: "Before all things... it must be seen whether in this matter of the sacramental seal it is lawful to use probable opinions... Viva... says that no one can use knowledge had from Confession unless it is morally certain, or at least certainly most probable, that from such use no revelation of Confession and no burden to the penitent will come. The reason..., because otherwise a probable burden would be inflicted on the penitent, on account of which Confession would be rendered odious to him... And this reason strongly presses... I think it must altogether be said that it is not lawful to use opinions from whose use it is not morally certain that no burden is inflicted on the penitent." And 637: "In doubt whether something was said by the penitent in relation to Confession, the confessor is bound to the seal... The reason is that otherwise Confession would be rendered odious, since otherwise many sins truly heard in Confession, because of a defect of memory and hallucination of the confessor, could be manifested with impunity." Diana, tom. 1, tr. 8, init.; Ithur., Cas. 37, n. 35; La-Croix 1946.

Can the confessor at least after the death of the penitent use knowledge acquired through Confession? - "The obligation of this seal is most strict, so that in no case ever, for the sake of obtaining any good or avoiding any evil, can any sin whatever, even the least, or anything else that falls under the seal of Confession, be revealed directly or indirectly, before and after the death of the one confessing, without mortal sacrilege." Laymann, l. 5, tr. 6, c. 14, n. 2. And Busembaum 634: "This seal is an obligation to be silent even after the death of the penitent."

Can a confessor, asked about the sin of a penitent, say that he does not know it, even with an oath? - Resp. In the affirmative, even if insistence is made that he speak without mental restriction, or as confessor. The reason is that he truly does not know it with knowledge permitted to human dealings. Hence he will always be able to say, and even to swear, that he does not know, that he says this without equivocation, or that he affirms it even as confessor. Nevertheless the better answer will always be to rebuke the importunate questioner: What kind of question is this which you ask? For sometimes it could happen that all would understand that the confessor truly was ignorant of the matter, and thus would deduce that the Confession had not been integral. - L. 645, 646, H. A. 148; St. Thomas, 4, d. 21, q. 3, a. 1 ad 3.

Who are bound to the seal? - Primarily every confessor is bound to the seal, whether true, or fictitious and by error considered legitimate, and consequently even a layman who would pretend to be a priest and would receive Confession. The reason is that as often as someone confesses in relation to the sacrament, whoever hears him contracts by that very fact the obligation of the seal; otherwise hatred of the sacrament would follow from it. - Secondarily, those are bound who become participants of Confession, or all those to whom knowledge of Confession comes in any way, whether from the Confession itself or from the means ordered to it. From the Confession itself; for the matter accused comes to their knowledge by the same occasion or cause because of which the obligation of the seal is given, namely lest hatred toward the sacrament be created. From the means; for hatred of the means redounds upon the end itself. - L. 645, 647.

Resolutions: The following are bound to the seal: 1. Interpreters employed in making Confession. 2. Superiors from whom, outside the sacrament, the faculty is sought of absolving or receiving absolution from a reserved case. 3. Those who hear a sin while someone is confessing, whether intentionally or even inculpably, and likewise if any should perhaps hear it from these. 4. Those who write the Confession of the uneducated, or of those ignorant of the language of the confessor, especially if Confession cannot be made in another way. 5. Doctors consulted by the confessor with permission of the penitent. 6. All those to whom the confessor or another would sacrilegiously or imprudently have manifested sins heard in Confession. Hence they cannot even speak among themselves about them. - L. 638, 647, 648; St. Thomas, 4, d. 21, q. 3, a. 1, q. 3 and a. 2 ad 4.

Is the penitent also bound to the seal with respect to the confessor? - He is not bound to the sacramental seal, because the obligation of the seal is only in favor of the penitent. - But he is bound to natural secrecy concerning those things which he cannot reveal without unjust harm to the confessor, or against his reasonable will, or without injury and contempt of the sacrament. L. 647.

Can the confessor speak with the penitent about his Confession? - He can speak in Confession about all past Confessions. The reason is that it often pertains to the duties of judge and physician, which the confessor has, to recall the sins of a prior Confession.

He can also speak after absolution before the penitent departs, or if afterward he returns. The reason is that although the sacrament is complete, nevertheless the judgment still morally persists. - Outside the sacred tribunal he cannot say even one word to the penitent about those things which pertain to his Confession, without his permission. Except, unless the penitent himself first speaks about his conscience. - L. 647, 651-653.

Is one who reads a paper on which the penitent wrote his Confession bound to the seal? - Resp. In the negative of itself. The reason is that this is not of itself a means ordered to Confession. Therefore until Confession is made from it, there is not yet an act by which someone subjects himself to the power of the keys in relation to absolution; and consequently of itself it does not bring the obligation of the sacramental seal, but only of natural secrecy; which nevertheless of itself presses under grave obligation, unless there is question of the lightest faults. - Of itself; for per accidens the obligation of the seal can be present if the paper were or had been a necessary means for Confession, e.g., if it was written by a mute person, or directed to a superior for the cause of some reservation; likewise if the paper had already been handed to the priest; and especially if someone read it while it is in the hand of the confessor, or in the act of Confession, or if it had been lost and left in the confessional, because in these cases it pertains to Confession, since it seems to be a persisting Confession. L. 650.

Is a doctor consulted by the penitent himself bound to the seal of Confession? - Resp. In the negative, at least more probably, if he is consulted concerning a Confession to be made to another; but he is bound only to natural secrecy. The reason is that the obligation of the seal arises from sacramental Confession alone, in which the penitent manifests sins in relation to absolution. If he is consulted concerning a Confession to be made to another; because if the penitent consults him concerning a Confession to be made to that very person, he is bound by the seal, since this consultation is to be considered as an inchoate Confession. - Suarez, d. 33, s. 4; Billuart, diss. 8, a. 3; L. 549; St. Thomas, 4, d. 21, q. 3, a. 1, q. 2, par. Sed contra.

Note: The permission of the penitent required so that the confessor can speak about matters which require the seal of Confession must be formal and express, free and spontaneous, and not revoked. But it can be given by word, or in writing, or by the deed itself, if, e.g., the penitent himself outside Confession begins to speak with the confessor about matters said in Confession.

L. 651. - Concerning this question of speaking with the faculty of the penitent, the excellent Doctor says that two things are to be distinguished: "For one thing is that the penitent says again outside Confession the matters once said in Confession; another thing is that, while the same seal and the same knowledge are preserved, he gives the faculty of speaking from that knowledge... The difference between this way and the former... first is that the faculty is always revocable; for it depends on the will of the one giving, because he neither conferred new knowledge, nor transferred to another any irrevocable right. But if he once said outside Confession what he had previously said in Confession, that knowledge is now irrevocable, nor can the penitent make it so that afterward the confessor knows only in Confession. Second, when the confessor speaks in this latter way by faculty, he can and must say that he knows in Confession, and speaks by permission of the penitent, so that the other may receive it in the due way; but in the former way he cannot say that he heard it in Confession, because he does not speak from that knowledge, nor from a faculty with respect to it, but from new knowledge. Third, because then he who hears is bound by the seal, if the confessor speaks only from his own faculty..., but not if he speaks from new knowledge according to the former way. Fourth, because that former way can be done from mere will, without a cause which pertains to the sacrament or piety, because it is a matter merely extrinsic to the sacrament; but that faculty is not to be given, nor is it to be used, unless from grave cause or reasonable utility." De Poenit., d. 33, s. 5; Laymann, l. 5, tr. 6, c. 14, n. 16; La-Croix, l. 6, p. 2, n. 1960.

What is the object of the seal? - The object of the seal is all sins confessed, and all things which pertain to the individual explanation of sins. The reason is that not only for sins, but also for all those things which help to explain them, the reason of the seal presses, and besides these constitute one thing with sins. - The object of the seal is also whatever has been manifested in Confession by reason of the Confession itself, the revelation of which would yield to the burden of the penitent and to hatred of the sacrament; because the seal was introduced lest from fear of revelation the faithful be drawn back from the sacrament of penance. L. 640.

Resolutions: The following fall under the seal of Confession: 1. All circumstances of sins, even those declared after absolution; for they are morally one with the sins already accused; even those declared through mere ignorance; otherwise Confession would be rendered very difficult, especially for those who do not know how to discern what things are altogether necessary and what things can and ought to be omitted in the Confession of one's own sin. Indeed the same must be said even if there were doubt whether the circumstances had been declared in relation to Confession or not. And thus "if someone confesses that he has sought the debt from his wife, although he had a vow of chastity, it cannot be said without violation of the seal that he has a vow of chastity." Lugo, d. 23, n. 52. All circumstances: understand those from whose manifestation one of the three aforesaid inconveniences could arise, namely revelation of Confession, burden of the penitent, or hatred of the sacrament. For many things are said also for explaining sins which of themselves do not seem to fall under the seal, e.g., that someone is married, a father of a family, an artisan, a merchant, initiated into sacred orders, a pastor, a ruler, etc. For these and other like things are said as publicly known, and only so that the confessor who perhaps is ignorant of them can form a right judgment about the sins. Lugo, l.c., n. 57. - 2.

The sins of an accomplice, even if they had been revealed without necessity along with the sin, because they were said from the intrinsic occasion of Confession. Likewise the object of the sin, if, e.g., a brother confesses that he did not correct his brother for theft committed. Except if there is no danger of revelation, no burden of the penitent, and no hatred toward the sacrament, e.g., if the penitent confesses that he rejoiced over a homicide committed in a public square. - 3. The penances imposed, unless perhaps they are very light, or from those which are usually imposed for the lightest faults. - 4. Defects manifested through Confession for explaining the nature of the sin, e.g., if the penitent says that he received sacred orders with an irregularity, because he is illegitimate, etc. - Lugo, d. 23, n. 59, 68; L. 640, 641; Suarez, d. 3, s. 3, n. 5, 10.

Do merely civil defects, e.g., of poverty; natural defects, e.g., of deafness or blindness; moral defects, e.g., of ignorance or scrupulosity, fall under the seal? - St. Alphonsus judges that all these defects fall under the seal if the penitent manifests these defects in order to explain sins; indeed even if they contribute nothing to explaining sins, but to explaining his conscience more fully; indeed even if they become known to the confessor from the actions of the penitent himself, or from the manner of confessing; indeed even if they are reported by the penitent in such a way that from the circumstances it is gathered that they are commonly known.

The reason for all these things is that in the first case that explanation enters into explaining the very nature of the sin; but in the other cases, because, since such defects, speaking of themselves, are odious, their manifestation would always render Confession somehow odious, and some burden would always result in some way for penitents, who for that reason would be delayed from Confession. - Hence they do not fall under the seal: 1.

If such defects are voluntarily disclosed incidentally or as altogether impertinent to Confession, namely without any order to explaining sins, to disclosing the conscience better, and are not known from the very manner of confessing. The reason is that then they pertain in no way at all to Confession. 2. If they are defects altogether known and public, and such that their manifestation cannot of itself bring burden and shame to the penitent, as is to be a beggar, blind, etc., nor bring hatred upon the sacrament by turning the faithful away from it or delaying them.

"But Roncaglia says that if some penitent is commonly known to be very prolix, restless, etc., in explaining something, then because it would clearly appear that the confessor is fleeing lest he be affected with weariness from his natural prolixity, restlessness, etc., in such circumstances to flee would not be a breaking of the seal. This can probably be admitted if it is commonly evident to others that that penitent is of timid conscience, so that he is judged morally certainly to be free from graver faults." L. 644, 641-643. On the contrary, if the confessor knows from preceding Confessions that someone is accustomed to have many sins, or to bring a slight disposition, he cannot hide himself or excuse himself from hearing him, even under some apparently just pretext. The reason is that although then "that flight under an apparently just pretext would not render Confession odious to such a penitent, nevertheless it would render it odious generally to the Christian commonwealth." L. 659.

Do virtues and revelations fall under the seal? - "I believe a distinction must be made: for sometimes the aforesaid things are said in order to receive instruction from the confessor, or to manifest the state of conscience integrally; and then they do not pertain to the matter of Confession, nor do they pertain to the seal, but to natural secrecy. But sometimes they can be said in order better to declare some sin, e.g., ingratitude toward God after these and those gifts and benefits of God, or inconstancy in good after such a firm purpose of procuring perfection, and similar things; and then I believe that they pertain to the seal, since they are already, at least obliquely, matter of Confession, and besides it appears that the penitent does not wish to manifest them outside Confession, but to retain them under the most strict seal of Confession." Lugo, d. 23, n. 58; L. 641.

Does a confessor violate the seal of Confession by saying about a certain determined person that he confessed his sins to him, or confessed only venial sins, or that he absolved him, or simply that he confessed? - If he says thus in general that such a person confessed his sins or venial sins to him, speaking of itself, he does not violate the seal of Confession.

For nothing is said which the penitent himself did not manifest publicly both to others and to the confessor himself by the very act of approaching sacramental Confession; for by Confession sins are manifested, at least venial sins, from which even the just and holy are not free daily. Therefore neither from that manifestation is Confession made odious, nor does any burden come to the penitent. But the seal of Confession is not broken unless either 1. insofar as the sin of the penitent is truly manifested, whether directly or indirectly; or 2. insofar as the sacrament of penance becomes odious; or 3. insofar as some burden comes to the penitent. But it is said of venial sins, speaking of itself, for it would certainly not be lawful to say that someone confessed venial sins to you if you say it in such circumstances from which it can be gathered that others are guilty or have confessed mortal sins, or otherwise, or that on this same occasion the penitent himself also confessed mortal sins, or if it would be understood what venial sin in species he declared. Here it must be noted that by saying about someone that he brings only light matters exclusively, Confession can also be revealed if, for example, afterward it is known that he secretly committed several sins, which consequently it is now recognized that he kept silent in Confession. L. 638, 640; Lugo, d. 23, n. 50; La-Croix 1972. If he says that such a penitent confessed several venial sins, or discloses some venial sin in particular, he now violates the seal of Confession. And this is clear from the common doctrine of theologians, because in direct violation of the seal smallness of matter is not admitted. L. 640. - Laymann n. 6 openly says that the seal is not violated if the confessor says that he absolved someone well confessed, provided he does not speak in such a way that he can be conjectured to be a great sinner; add, or even that otherwise he himself had not been absolved, or that others did not receive absolution, or that there is danger that later his Confession will appear to have been sacrilegious. "The seal is not broken... if you say that N. confessed to you, although in certain circumstances this also is dangerous. Indeed if the penitent by word or deed, for example by approaching secretly, has signified that he does not wish it to be known that he confessed, Reginald, Navarro, etc., hold that the confessor reveals the seal, and Sporer, etc., rightly agree, because the penitent by confessing to an extraordinary confessor would come into suspicion of a graver crime." L. 638.

Do sins committed in Confession itself, e.g., of impatience or insult against the confessor, fall under the seal? - Resp. In the negative, rigorously of themselves, because the penitent does not confess those faults, as is clear. Yet affirmatively for the most part, although only per accidens; because although those sins are not of themselves matter of the seal, nevertheless often per accidens they involve in some way the danger of revelation; for they provide a probable indication that the confessor either refused to absolve the penitent, or because of a graver fault rebuked him more severely. - But theft committed by the penitent to the harm of the confessor himself during the time of Confession would not fall under the seal. Indeed if it were established that the thief had come to confess in order to have the occasion of stealing, the sins accused by him would not be matter of Confession; since such a Confession would not be true, but only simulated. - Lugo, d. 23, n. 60; L. 643.

How is the seal violated? - It can be violated in two ways: 1. directly, by expressly revealing something known from Confession alone, e.g., if it is said: Titius did this, so that either the penitent is indicated, or at least the penitent can probably be known from those things which are contained under the seal of Confession and are manifested; 2. indirectly, by saying or doing something, or by not saying, not doing, by force of sacramental Confession, from which someone by reasoning can know or suspect the sin or defect of the penitent known by force of Confession alone, or from which shame, annoyance, dishonor, harm, or any burden whatever can arise for the penitent or for others, e.g., accomplices; or hatred toward the sacrament, whence generally the faithful could be turned away from or delayed from Confession.

Resolutions: He violates the secrecy of Confession either indirectly or directly: 1. Who, praising one above others whom he has heard, says that he committed only venial sins, because from this the others are easily brought into suspicion of mortal fault. Likewise he who relates sins known from Confession in such a way that the hearers can by some reason conjecture or suspect who committed them.

2. Who speaks with another confessor about the sins of some penitent, even if that penitent confessed the same sins to each. - Who speaks about the sin of a penitent, known through Confession alone, with others who know this from elsewhere, even if the hearers do not notice that it was received from Confession; if indeed he speaks of it as of a matter of which he himself has knowledge, but by no means if he speaks of it as people commonly are accustomed to speak about a matter which is first narrated to them and which they first learn. Indeed even studied silence of the confessor could sometimes introduce suspicion against the penitent. - Who, while narrating the sins of some person which he knew outside Confession, adds some circumstance known from Confession alone, or who uses knowledge of Confession for determining or confirming the matter more.

3. Who says that he did not absolve such a person, sent him back to such a time, has not yet absolved him, or that the Confession has not yet been completed; because a long Confession ordinarily denotes many sins, or indisposition of the penitent. - Likewise who says of Titius, known as a thief, that he confessed his thefts to him with great contrition. - Who with a loud voice, or in another manner intelligible to bystanders, rebukes a penitent; for this is both grave to the penitent and introduces suspicion to others that he confessed grave sins; and a fortiori if by raising his voice too much he would repeat the sins of the penitent, or question about their circumstances.

4. Who, after hearing the Confessions of few persons, says that he heard such a sin, although he conceals the person; for each one suffers some suspicion against himself from that revelation. - Who would say that he heard a grave sin in such a monastery, even if he did not name the person; because each religious of that convent suffers detriment. - A fortiori he would violate the seal who would say that such sins are committed in that convent. But otherwise if he would say that he heard the grave sin of some religious in general, without naming his order, because there is neither revelation of the seal, nor does it redound to the burden of the penitent, nor of any order, since among the various orders there are not lacking some less good religious.

5. Who looks upon the penitent after Confession with a stern eye, does not address him as he had been accustomed to do before, and shows by harsher words, gestures, or his whole manner of acting, that he remembers his sins, is actually thinking about them, and esteems him less than before. L. 654, 655, 657.

Does a confessor violate the seal who denies a certificate of Confession to an indisposed penitent? - Resp. In the affirmative, as often as he denies the certificate to a penitent asking for it outside Confession. The reason is that he uses knowledge of Confession for acting exteriorly, and indeed with great burden to the penitent. - If an indisposed penitent asks for a certificate within Confession, when it is usually given, or is required by the superiors of the penitent, Lugo with others denies, because the confessor says nothing, but only does not approve that Confession by positive testimony, to which he is not bound. D. 23, n. 87. But the doctors more probably and more commonly affirm, because from denial of the certificate it becomes known to others that the penitent was not duly confessed nor absolved, and therefore it will be an indirect violation of the seal. Elbel 492; Sporer 839; L. 639. - But negatively, if the penitent asks for a certificate in Confession outside the aforesaid circumstances, or when it is not usually given to all, or is not required by superiors. The reason is that then the confessor, saying nothing, conducts himself merely negatively, and does not approve that Confession with positive testimony, to which he is not bound. Besides, the penitent is not compelled by necessity to declare to others that he was not absolved; whence if he says this, he himself discloses his indisposition, not the confessor.

Lugo, d. 23, n. 87. - Nevertheless at times the confessor can give a certificate of Confession even to an indisposed penitent because of various inconveniences which would follow from its denial; nor then will he cooperate in the sacrilege of the penitent, who perhaps will use this testimony of Confession for receiving a sacrament of the living, e.g., the Eucharist or matrimony, in the state of sin; the reason is that the penitent will have to attribute this to his own malice. Elbel 492. - Negatively also, whenever the penitent made a simulated Confession, e.g., to flee punishment or avoid infamy. For the seal is not broken, whether the certificate is denied within or outside Confession. The reason is that the seal arises from sacramental Confession alone, which is in no way had here. Nor generally can the confessor grant such persons a certificate, because without sufficient reason he would cooperate in their future sacrilege. Besides, he would assert something false, namely that they were confessed, which is not true. Lugo, d. 23, n. 87; Elbel 494.

What must the confessor do when he detects that the penitent is deaf? - If he notices the deafness at the beginning of Confession, he must impose on the penitent that he return at a suitable time and place. If in the course of Confession he discovers this, generally he cannot impose on the penitent in a loud voice that he return, lest he introduce to others a suspicion that he had confessed concerning grave matter; but let him hear the sins in the best way he can, and, with questions omitted, impart absolution to the penitent in an absolute manner if he judges him disposed, or conditional absolution if he doubts about the disposition; and let him impose a light penance on him, lest others think that he sinned gravely. L. 644.

Can the confessor admonish an accomplice with the permission of the penitent, or another for correcting the accomplice? - Resp. In the affirmative. The reason is that an accomplice acquires no right to the sacramental seal from the Confession of the other accomplice; for this seal was instituted only in favor of penitents, and consequently the right of secrecy is acquired for him alone who commits it. - Ordinarily however it is not expedient for the confessor to ask such permission; but it will be better to induce the penitent to open this to him outside Confession; indeed it will be still better for the penitent himself to report the matter to another who can bring a remedy to the evil. - L. 640, 641; St. Thomas, Opusc. 12, q. 6.

Can the confessor deny Communion to a penitent to whom he previously denied absolution, if he approaches the sacred table?

Resp. In the negative, even if he asks secretly, because the confessor cannot use knowledge of Confession for acting externally against the penitent. "This opinion today must altogether be held from the Decree of Innocent XI." L. 658.

Does he break the seal who says that such a vice reigns in a city or village, or that grave crimes are committed there? - Resp. In the affirmative, if the place is sufficiently narrow, e.g., if it does not consist of about three thousand persons. "The reason is that although the person is not then revealed, nevertheless since the revelation issues into the infamy of the whole community, it also redounds to the burden of the penitent, who is a member of that community, and therefore from such revelation Confession would be rendered odious to him." L. 654. Otherwise, if the town is large and public crimes are often perpetrated there. L. 654.

Can preachers use knowledge of Confession to speak about those things about which they would not have thought unless they had heard Confessions? - Resp. In the affirmative, with danger of revelation and burden of penitents excluded. The reason is that no violation of the seal is then had. But, as is clear, they can do this only generally and indeterminately, and not by adding that they heard it in Confessions. Therefore they must altogether beware lest they speak publicly about the wholly particular sins of one or another penitent, especially if they have the sermon before some small community, e.g., in a monastery of nuns; because then revelation could easily arise and burden be introduced. - Elbel 525; L. 654.

Can a priest who knows from Confession that plots are being prepared against him flee, or in another way prevent the harm? - Resp. In the affirmative, if from such caution the sin accused is in no way manifested to others, nor any burden brought to the penitent. - If he cannot flee without somehow manifesting that some sin was accused by the penitent, then several still affirm; because to reveal the confession of a sin is not to reveal the sin; and indeed in this case it is clear that knowledge of the sin does not arise from Confession, but on the contrary knowledge of the Confession of the sin proceeds from certain knowledge of the sin. Castro Palao, tr. 23, p. 19, § 3, n. 18. But others, whose opinion I follow, says St. Liguori, deny, and it seems altogether to be denied. The reason is that with such circumstances posited, namely the knowledge of the crime by others and the Confession of the penitent, that flight would be a true revelation, although indirect, not only of the Confession made but also of the sin confessed; and although the confessor would pretend flight from some pretext, nevertheless it would always provide a reasonable suspicion of the sin declared. - Therefore to escape those dangers, either from the permission of the penitent or by other ways he must provide without that indirect breaking of the seal. - Lugo, d. 23, n. 108 ff.; L. 659.

Can superiors use knowledge of Confession for external government, if it in no way appears that they direct themselves from that knowledge? - Resp. In the negative. The reason is that evidently this would yield to the burden of penitents. Besides, if the faithful knew that such a doctrine was taught everywhere, they would be drawn back from Confession. This is clear also from various Decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, especially Clement VIII, May 26, 1594, for Regulars. But although this Decree was issued for Regulars, it must be extended to all superiors, since the same reason which presses for Regulars also holds for seculars. It is clear also from the Decree of the S. I. C. issued by the authority of Innocent XI in the year 1682. - L. 656, 657, 670; Lugo, d. 23, n. 98; La-Croix 1977; E. M.

Can the confessor at least sometimes, or when, use knowledge of Confession? - According to all theologians he can do this in the following cases: 1. to pray for the penitent, or to act more kindly toward him; 2. to consult books or wise men, prudently however, with danger of revelation excluded; 3. to direct himself by the experience acquired from Confessions, e.g., to temper rigor, and to direct himself from the Confession of one person toward prudently questioning or instructing others, while giving no suspicion of the prior Confession; 4. to reform his own morals, to correct his own defects, or to perform his office better, e.g., to cast off sloth, to watch more diligently over subjects generally, with suspicion of revelation in a particular case nevertheless excluded, and with any burden of the penitent and hatred toward Confession excluded, because each person is bound to correct his own defects as soon as he notices them; nor can any penitent reasonably be offended because the confessor, on account of things heard in Confession, changes his own life for the better, with no inconvenience or burden to him at all. 5. The same indeed is lawful in other similar cases, with the same restrictions always: that no revelation of Confession be had, no burden of the penitent, no hatred toward Confession. - L. 657.