Case LXXIV: Preserving the Seal of Confession by the Confessor Against Himself

It is the strict and sacred duty of the confessor to observe inviolable silence in regard to everything heard in Confession, as far as it in any way relates to sin, and to avoid everything that directly or indirectly might lead to a revelation of what has been confessed, or to any embarrassment for his penitent. Towards the latter the confessor must not in any way let his conduct outside the confessional be guided by what he has heard him confess in the tribunal of Penance. Is the confessor obliged, in regard to knowledge gained in Confession (the sins of a penitent) to preserve secrecy even toward himself? This theoretically not unimportant, and practically essential, question may be illustrated by an example, and then argued by the facts.

A confessor hears of grievous and scandalous sins in the Confession of a penitent unknown to him. A curiosity to know who this penitent may be causes the confessor to take steps to ascertain the identity of this person. Has the confessor, by this effort, committed a sin, and of what kind? It is presumed here that a violation of the sigillum sacramentale, in the ordinary sense, has not taken place. We answer:

I. It is almost certain that the confessor trespassed against charity. Indeed, there may be cases (if in very grave sins a penitent has special interest not to be recognized) in which such conduct of a confessor must be considered a grievous sin against charity.

II. The decision whether the confessor has also sinned against justice, in the sense of detractio, and against the Sacrament, by way of a fractio sigilli sacramentalis depends upon whether the penitent by making Confession resigns his right to a good reputation, as far as the confessor is concerned, or not. The following points seem to speak for the first supposition.

1. The Sacrament of Penance is carried out in the manner of a tribunal. In no tribunal has the accused—be the proceeding public or not, be the verdict made public or not—the right to remain unknown to the judge.

2. No fear, however well founded, of losing the good opinion of the priest by confessing sins can excuse from the obligation of confessing or from the integrity of the Confession.

3. In order to ascertain whether, in a certain instance, a law or commandment holds good, it is to be considered whether this law or commandment applies under all ordinary circumstances. If this be not the case, then in general the non-existence of a law or a commandment may be concluded. Ordinarily, however, the confessor does know his penitent (except in large cities), and the contrary is usually the exception.

4. Formerly there was the obligation, at least at stated times, to confess to one’s parish priest (pastor), and the meaning of still existing reservations is, indeed, that such penitents have to present themselves in person before the bishop (Pope) to receive absolution. That under such conditions an incognito is not easy to maintain is evident. It seems to follow that the Church does not make provision that the penitent remain unknown to the confessor.

5. If we would recognize it as an actual right of the penitent that the confessor in the above case, and in similar cases, must avoid all inquiry as to the name of the same, then this right would have to be accorded to all penitents. This would be in contradiction to the view and practise of learned and conscientious priests, who do not hesitate, upon occasion, to inquire for the names of penitents.

IIT. To these arguments it may be objected:

1. The comparison is not justified. In a court an exterior act is performed, the justice of which must be publicly perceptible, an act that entails public consequences in which the knowledge of the personality of the accused is almost inevitably necessary; in the Sacrament of Penance there is judgment made only in regard to the inner life; there are no consequences regarding the standing of the penitent in society; his name plays no part; and for this reason the Sacrament of itself does not violate such a right of the penitent, nor bestow it upon the confessor.

2. If the commandment of Confession and of its integrity is so strict that before it the protection of the good name of the penitent with regard to the confessor must yield, it does not follow that regard on part of the confessor for the reputation of the penitent may be left out of consideration if the administration of the Sacrament does not compel it.

3. This principle may probably govern when there is question of gaining a right, of establishing a new obligation; not, however, when the application of an already existing right is concerned, of an already existing obligation. Of course the penitent through Confession gains no new right to his good name, but he retains his old right so long as it is not abrogated by the collision of right and duty.

4. This proves only that the Church, in respect to the Sacrament of Penance, may make laws without giving heed to the guarding of the penitent’s good repute with the confessor. Compare the above objection to 2. Furthermore, the rights given the faithful in these times in regard to the choice of the spiritual director, and the present usage in regard to reserved cases, shows what tender regard the Church manifests for the honor of penitents.

5. The reason of the absolute necessity of complete and unconditional secrecy regarding that what is heard in Confession, and in any way relates to sin, is not merely the guarding of the penitent’s honor, but also regard for the manifold consequences that would arise from any kind of permission to reveal such matter. Such consequences are not anticipated in our case (if the secret is faithfully observed), and there exists here only the consideration for the penitent’s honor. And this is the standard for an obligation of the confessor in this connection. By venial sins the confessor’s regard for a penitent is hardly lessened, and even in the case of grievous sins it is not always seriously injured. It is, indeed, held by many theologians that by communicating a grievous sin of a neighbor to a trustworthy person where no danger of further disclosure is to be feared, no serious injury to the good reputation takes place, and therefore no grievous sin. Furthermore, the confessor is aware not merely of the sin, but also of contrition and absolution, and in his eyes even a great sinner has, perhaps, gained more than lost by the Confession. However, in judging this matter, the ordinary view of what is dishonorable or not, and the penitent’s own view thereon, is more to be considered than the merciful viewpoint of the priest. Stress must finally be laid upon the fact that while the penitent frequently voluntarily renounces all claims to the good opinion of the confessor, in the case of venial sins especially, but also in the case of grievous sins, it must be remembered that this is not always the case, that often penitents, so as not to lose the personal esteem of their confessor, will make great sacrifices in order to find a priest to whom they are unknown. From these arguments it seems proper to draw these conclusions:

(a) It cannot be proven that the penitent by making Confessione€0 ipso renounces his claim upon the esteem of the confessor. That he frequently does not intend this is well known. (b) Ascertaining the name of a penitent means, under circumstances, the loss of the confessor’s esteem.

(c) The confessor, who, induced by the contents of the sacramental Confession, takes steps to procure for himself the knowledge of the penitent’s name, misuses, if none of the mentioned, justifying, excuses exist, the Sacrament for the defamation of the penitent in his (the confessor’s) eyes. There is then present the detractio, with the special malitia of the fractio sigilli.

The application of these conclusions to question 2 of our case is self-evident.

The matter assumes another aspect if the confessor seeks information respecting the person of the penitent, not on account of the matter confessed, but for other reasons, even if he remembers that in the Confession grievous and scandalous sins were mentioned. From the standpoint of justice this cannot be designated as unlawful. For, in the first place, the act of going to Confession is an exterior act that may be observed, and which obliges therefore not to secrecy; furthermore, the penitent, while not losing the right respecting his honor through his Confession, does not gain a new right, so that the confessor is not prevented from doing something which he concluded to do uninfluenced by anything he has heard in Confession.

This case—special attention should be paid to this—is only apparently identical with the first mentioned, but differs from it in the motive. In the one case (second case) the inquiry is, who is he who performed the exterior action of the reception of the Sacrament. In the other (first case), however, the inquiry is, who made this particular Confession—who is the one who declared himself guilty of these scandalous sins—and this latter is manifestly trespassing the sacred precincts of the Sacrament. Of course, in practise the bounds between the lawful and unlawful are not always easy to draw; but that is not an objection against the accuracy of our argument. It may be rightly expected that a priest, worthy of the name of confessor, will willingly impose a sacrifice upon himself for the honor of his penitent, excepting naturally cases where just the priest’s reserve might be interpreted to the prejudice of the penitent and thus might lead to an indirect and exterior fractio sigilli.

Ambrose Runggaldier, O.F.M.