Case IX: The Seal of Confession

Titus, a priest, has for some time, been hearing the monthly confessions of certain boys. Recently the boy J. came to Confession and confessed among other things, that he had been “mad at a boy.” No names are mentioned, but the priest happens to know the boy J., who is confessing, and thinks he knows also the one at whom J., as he says, is “‘mad,” and whose name is H. After questioning to satisfy himself that J. entertains no further ill-will against the other boy, the priest absolves and dismisses the penitent. Subsequently he notices that the two boys J. and H. are no longer seen together, though they had in the past associated a great deal. Titus, in an occasional talk with H., whom he thinks to be the boy referred to by J. in Confession, asks H. if he and J. were not on good terms, and H. admits they were not. Titus brought up this matter in order to bring about a reconciliation between the two boys, one of whom, J., had in Confession expressed his consent to be reconciled.

Did Titus act properly in asking this other boy H. about the matter? e. g., if he and J. were on good terms? Would the two boys concerned be likely to think that the priest made use of knowledge which he had obtained in the confessional?

Answer. There are two decrees of the Holy See extant, regarding the use of knowledge gained in the confessional. The first is a decree of Clement VIII, May 26, 1593, in which superiors of religious orders are forbidden to make use of any knowledge gained in the confessional, for the external government of the order. DeLugo and St. Alphonsus, both maintain that this decree is to be extended to all superiors, even though they belong to the secular clergy, in relation to all classes of penitents, because the decree does not contain merely a particular regulation for some individuals, but it promulgates a divine law concerning the seal of Confession. And for this reason, they say, that the doctrine of the earlier theologians, that knowledge gained from Confession might be made use of, provided there was no danger of revealing the sins of the penitent, that is, provided others would not suspect anything about the penitent, must be corrected. The other decree is a decree of the Holy Office, November 18, 1682, by which it is forbidden to make use of information gained in the confessional, to the detriment of the penitent, even though by so doing the penitent might be saved from some greater evil or suffering, and especially from some greater sin. This decree necessitates the amendment of the principle, held also by the earlier theologians, that information gathered in the confessional might be made use of, provided the penitent could not be rationabiliter invitus, that is to say, when the use of such information is necessary to reclaim the penitent from sin.

St. Alphonsus admonishes all confessors to be exceedingly careful in the matter of the seal of Confession, since there is always more or less danger of either revealing the sins of the penitent or else creating hardships for him. We will give a brief synopsis of the teaching of the holy Doctor in regard to the seal of Confession. He says that it is never allowed to make use of any information gained from the Confession of a penitent, if

1. There be danger of revealing a penitent’s sins;

2. Thereby a hardship be created for the penitent, or the penitent be led thereby to dislike or detest Confession;

3. Others suspect that the seal of Confession is being violated, or in other words, if others are scandalized.

1. Even though some greater evil or sin might be obviated for the penitent, by the use of information gained from the penitent’s Confession, it is never allowed to use it. Not even if the penitent did not know that the confessor was acting on information gathered from his Confession. The reason why such knowledge may not be used, even when the penitent is quite ignorant that it is being used, is that the faithful would be turned away from the practice of Confession, if they thought that the confessor might use the information gathered from their Confessions.

Therefore, if the confessor knows from the penitent’s Confession, that the penitent is making bad Confessions, or is indisposed, he may not, for that reason, refuse to hear his Confession. For such conduct on the part of the confessor would be a violation of the seal and would render Confession odious.

It is never allowed to question the confessor of children concerning their conduct, nor is it permitted to consult a confessor regarding young men who are to receive holy orders. The only information that a confessor may volunteer under such circumstances is that such penitents frequent the Sacraments.

2. It is lawful to use information gathered in the confessional, provided such use does not result in hardship to the penitent and there be no fear of any revelation. For if there be no fear either of revelation or of hardship for the penitent, the Sacrament will not be made odious, even though the penitent should notice that some use was being made of what he had told in Confession, because if the use being made of knowledge gained in Confession is in no wise detrimental or burdensome to the penitent then such use does not make Confession more difficult or distasteful.

Therefore a confessor may make use of what he knows from Confession for the reformation of his own life, for the better fulfillment of his office or duties as a confessor, to pray to God for his penitents, to treat them with more kindliness, even though the penitent might notice that this was being done because of what he told in his Confession; since the Sacrament is not thus made hateful; the confessor may also use knowledge that he has from Confession, to consult works on theology and the spiritual life; to temper his dealings with penitents in the confessional; to save himself from the pitfalls that his penitents have encountered; to admonish others, etc. In sermons it is allowed to speak in a general way of things, that a preacher would not think of unless he heard Confessions, but he must have a care not to speak of any particular sins of individual penitents.

3. A confessor may do anything that he ought to do, or would have done, even if he had not heard Confessions; even though it was the Confessions that put it into his mind to do it now; provided he take care to admonish the penitent, lest he be scandalized. But it is not lawful for a confessor to do anything on account of something he hears in Confession, which otherwise he would not have done, if from his doing so, a hardship might be created for the penitent, or there be fear or danger that something be revealed. The confessor is obliged in conscience to wait until some future event or occurrence furnish him an excuse or motive for doing what would otherwise not be done.

In answer to the question now, it is evident from what has been said above, that the priest had no right to ask the question which he put to H. Even though his purpose was to remove an occasion and cause of sin between the two boys, still his knowledge was gathered exclusively from the Confession of one of the boys, and its use, under the circumstances, would create suspicion that he was breaking the seal of Confession, and make Confession distasteful and even odious. Even though the priest might have had J.’s permission to speak of the matter to the other boy, he would first have to explain the circumstance of the permission to H. in order to remove any scandal that H. might take by thinking that the priest was violating the seal of J.’s Confession, in speaking to him about a reconciliation. The priest should have waited until he learned, by some means independent of the confessional, that J. and H. were estranged, and then, letting the boys know clearly whence he had his knowledge, might have tried to reconcile them.