Point I. On the Obligation of the Seal

647. Principles. - I. There is the strictest obligation of preserving the seal of confession inviolably. This is established: 1. from natural law, and indeed under the title both of justice and of religion; 2. from positive divine law, at least implicitly, for from the institution of Christ confession must be secret; therefore by that very fact the obligation of preserving the seal was imposed upon Confessors by Christ; 3. from ecclesiastical law, as is established from several passages of canon law, especially from the Fourth Lateran Council, chapter 21, Omnis utriusque sexus, where it is said: But let the Confessor take every care not in any way to betray the sinner by word or sign or in any other manner; but if he should need more prudent counsel, let him seek it cautiously without any expression of the person.

II. 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 evident, because if some exception could be given, men would always fear that such a sin might be that cause for licitly breaking the seal, and consequently the Sacrament would become odious. Moreover, no cause of obtaining a good or avoiding an evil can compensate for this evil of hatred of the Sacrament. - See St. Ligorius, no. 634.

III. The obligation of the seal arises from every and only sacramental confession, namely, one which is made with the intention of accusing oneself and obtaining absolution. It is said, first, from every, because then the whole reason of the precept is present; and this avails even if absolution was not conferred for any cause whatever, since the confession is made in order that absolution may sometime be received. It is said, second, from only, because sacramental confession alone introduces the obligation of the seal, since any other manifestation has no relation to the Sacrament of Penance. - St. Ligorius, no. 536, etc.

648. Resolutions. - 1. A confession knowingly made to a layman or to a priest lacking jurisdiction does not introduce the obligation of the seal, but only that of natural secrecy. It would have to be said otherwise if the priest were believed approved, because the confession on the part of the penitent is truly sacramental.

2. If someone approaches a Confessor with the intention of deceiving him, mocking him, drawing him into sin, or extorting something from him, he does not accuse himself in order to the Sacrament, and consequently there is no obligation of the sacramental seal.

3. If someone opens his conscience to a Confessor without the will of receiving absolution, but in order to obtain counsel or to satisfy in some manner the command of a Superior, only the obligation of natural secrecy presses, because this is not done in order to absolution.

649. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Is there slightness of matter in a violation of the seal?

Reply. No, at least in direct revelation. The reason is that even the slightest matter includes the whole reason of the precept. - St. Ligorius, no. 635.

I said, 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 if some revelation should then perhaps follow, it would have to be judged to follow by chance and per accidens.

650. • QUESTION 2. Is it lawful to use a probable opinion in the matter of the seal?

Reply. No, because it is not lawful to use a probable opinion to the prejudice of a certain right which another possesses, etc. Therefore, the Confessor is bound to the seal even in doubt whether something was said by the penitent in order to confession. - St. Ligorius, no. 633 ¹.

¹ It will be useful to add here what Diana has on this matter (volume 1, treatise 8, at the beginning), in the proem to the Treatise on the Sacramental Seal: Perhaps you will wonder (he says), friendly reader, that in the following Treatise I always embrace the stricter opinions, although in other matters I have willingly adhered to more benign opinions for relieving consciences. But I judged that this should deservedly be done. For lax opinions concerning the present matter render the Sacrament of Penance odious and burdensome, which every right reason demands should be rendered easy and light by us. Therefore, in these matters, when two opinions are present, that one must always be chosen which favors the Sacrament, to whose most holy tribunal penitents are to be attracted rather than withdrawn. Add that, although speculatively speaking many of the opinions written below against the sacred seal are probable, nevertheless, as the opposing Doctors themselves concede,

when they are reduced to practice without sin, one must proceed with such great circumspection that they judge it can scarcely be done without some scandal. Therefore, I rightly think that in this matter Confessors must always hold in favor of the sacred seal.

QUESTION 3. What should a Confessor reply to one asking about things heard in confession or about absolution imparted?

Reply. As regards the first, let him reply, even with an oath interposed if there is need, that he knows nothing or has heard nothing, because he has no communicable knowledge. - Thus all.

As regards the second, let him reply: I have discharged my office; or, Are such questions to be asked? - St. Ligorius, Apostolic Man, no. 148.