Case XXX: The Seal of the Confessional Must Be Observed Even in the Confessional Itself

A certain wife and her husband make their Easter confession to the same confessor. The woman confesses that she committed adultery, and indeed at the instigation of her husband, who was led by some reason unknown to me. The husband approaches immediately after his wife but says absolutely nothing about this matter—namely, about his malicious counsel.

The confessor is in a state of the greatest perplexity. On the one hand he knows from the answer to his question about the last confession that the delictum cannot have been the subject of a former confession, but, on the other hand, he knows how strictly binding is the seal of the confessional upon the confessor, and that it is absolutely wrong for him to make any use of knowledge derived from one person's confession in dealing with another penitent, although he may be aware of some sin committed by the latter. In this difficulty the confessor—whom we may call Fortunatus—suddenly remembers that he has read, in works on moral theology, that it is not to be regarded as a fractio sigilli if a confessor, hearing the confession of sponsi in such a case, supplements the deficiency by means of questions not likely to arouse suspicion. He asks his penitent therefore a few questions, such as, whether he has nothing more on his conscience, whether he has not cherished evil thoughts, whether he has not used improper language, whether he has been guilty of another's sin, whether he has advised any one to sin? Fortunatus dares not go further, for the penitent answers each question with an emphatic " No," and declares that he has nothing more to confess. It seems incredible that the man can really have forgotten so serious an offense, and the priest finally comes to the conclusion that he is dealing with a thoroughly hardened sinner, and so, in order not to expose the Sacrament to frustration, he follows the advice given by St. Alphonsus, and says a de profundis over him, instead of giving him absolution, and dismisses him. Subsequently, however, very grave doubts arise in his mind, and he wonders whether he has acted rightly, and whether, by asking one or two more questions, he could not have made it easier for his unhappy penitent to confess his grievous offense. Fortunatus thinks that more judicious treatment on his part might have restored the grace of God and peace of mind to the man, and have saved him from the terrible sacrilege of making a bad Communion. Should he not have followed the advice of other theologians and have given him absolution at least conditionatim?

The question resolves itself into two points:

(1) Ought Fortunatus to have asked further questions of a more searching character?

(2) Did he act rightly in not giving absolution?

Answer.—( 1 ) Fortunatus should be troubled not because he has asked too few questions, but rather because he has asked too many. He certainly went too far in asking the penitent whether he had been guilty of another's sin, and whether he had advised any one to sin. These two questions could be asked citra suspicionem only in the case when a confessor, owing to the incompleteness of a confession made to him, takes all the commandments singly and questions the penitent with regard to each separately. In the form and order in which Fortunatus asked the questions, the last at least is decidedly objectionable and is equivalent to an indirect laesio sigilli.

The reference to the questions that may in a similar case be asked of sponsi is not to the point. The case is not similar. In that of sponsi the questions are such as do not imperil the sigillum, because they relate to sins quae apud sponsos contingere solent. The confessor may then ask plainly about sins de sexto, though he must of course do so discreetly. But in the case under discussion the sin is not one of those quae apud sponsos contingere solent, and it would never have occurred to Fortunatus to ask such a question unless he had previously heard the confession of the accomplice. By asking it, he may very probably have aroused in his penitent, especially if the latter was wilfully silent regarding his sins (as Fortunatus believed), the suspicion that the priest was asking these questions because of something heard in the preceding confession.

(2) In my opinion Fortunatus committed a still more serious mistake in not giving absolution. St. Alphonsus advised confessors to substitute some prayer for the formula of absolution, in the case of a sinner who had not the proper dispositions, and to whom it was impossible to explain why absolution was refused him. The Saint was referring to a case that might easily occur in confessions of sponsi, but his remarks apply only to instances in which the bad dispositions resulting from punishable silence are perfectly certain. Fortunatus cannot possess this certainty in the case under discussion, because, although the sin is in itself grievous, it is one committed by the tongue, and it may possibly have really been forgotten. We should remember how little attention is paid to sins of the tongue even by otherwise conscientious people. It is also conceivable that the penitent has some erroneous idea that his evil suggestion was not particularly sinful, perhaps owing to impotentia relativa propter imbecillitatem ex parte viri. (Cf. Binder-Scheicher, Eherecht, p. 24, note I.)

There may have been very little ground for his entertaining these doubts, or others like them; but still any one of them ought to have been enough to prevent Fortunatus from having recourse to the manner of refusing absolution that some theologians recommend. I say this the more emphatically because, even where the confessor is perfectly certain, in the above-mentioned circumstances, that there is indispositio on the part of the penitent, many approved authors are opposed to any refusal of absolution, and very good reasons for giving it can be brought forward.—Professor Johann Ackerl.