Point IV. On the Various Ways of Violating the Seal

664. • The seal can be violated in two ways: 1. directly, by expressly revealing something pertaining to the secrets of Confession, for example, if it is said, Titius did this, etc.; 2. indirectly, by saying or doing something from which someone can know or suspect a sin or defect ¹ of the penitent known in confession alone, or from which shame, vexation, disgrace, harm, or any burden whatever can arise for the penitent or others, for example, accomplices ².

¹ Distinguish, however, among defects; for, as was said above at no. 657, the revelation of just any defect does not import a violation of the seal.

² Understand these things with the suitable limitations which can be taken from the foregoing. For not every word or deed of a Confessor from which vexation, disgrace, harm, or a burden to the penitent follows pertains to the breaking of the sacramental seal, but only that from which some direct or indirect revelation follows of those things which pertain to the seal. Thus, for example, if the Confessor reveals that someone came also to seek alms, intercession, mediation for entering into peace, etc. Otherwise, the priest indeed will not be free from fault, but he will not sin against the seal.

** The VV. censure this short Note (p. 643, in the Note) because, they say, the distinction between a burden which is or is not against the seal involves a begging of the question.

Reply. The VV. do not seem to have sufficiently examined the first words of the Note, where it is said that the limitations can be taken from the foregoing. For in the foregoing that distinction is sufficiently declared. The VV. have an example in St. Alphonsus (Apostolic Man, treatise 16, no. 154), where he writes: If the penitent were commonly known to be excessively prolix and troublesome in confessing, the Confessor does not break the seal if he were to flee from him..., when that penitent at the same time was commonly held to be of a good conscience. Behold an act of the Confessor which surely happens to be burdensome to the penitent and nevertheless is not against the seal.

Rule I. The seal is violated indirectly whenever penitents or others can deservedly be offended by things said or done by the Confessor from knowledge had in confession alone ³. But it is not judged violated if the penitents would regard these things indifferently. The reason for each is sufficiently established from the things said above. - Thus commonly.

³ Understand this if the Confessor uses knowledge of those things which, according to the foregoing, are matter of the sacramental seal. The second part of this rule must also be rightly understood; for if the matter concerns the seal, the Confessor will sin no less against it even if he believes that perhaps the penitents would not take it ill.

Rule II. In doubt whether in such a manner of speaking or acting there is danger of revelation or offense, one must stand for the safer side, or the one favoring the seal. - Thus commonly; and it is established from the things said above, no. 650.

Rule III. There is no violation of the seal if someone narrates a sin heard in confession in such a manner that the sinners cannot be revealed by any indication. Nevertheless, apart from the utility of instruction or of seeking counsel, one must generally abstain from similar narrations; the reason is that lay hearers, especially the simple, are easily scandalized, suspecting that the seal is violated. And sometimes in these frequent and promiscuous conversations there is danger that someone may be brought into suspicion concerning the penitent, and indeed that revelation may follow.

665. Resolutions. - The secrecy of confession is indirectly violated by:

1. One who, praising one above others whom he heard, says that he committed only venial sins, because the others are thereby easily brought under suspicion of mortal fault.

2. One who speaks with others about a sin of the penitent known through confession alone, although they know it from another source, even if the hearers do not notice that it was received from confession.

3. One who says that he did not absolve such a person, that he sent him away until such a time, that he has not yet absolved him, or that the confession has not yet been completed ⁴. The reason for the last is that a long confession ordinarily denotes many sins or the indisposition of the penitent, unless it were known to be a general confession or one resumed after a long time, so that the penitent would not take this ill. Likewise, one who says of Titius, known as a thief, that he confessed his thefts to him with great contrition.

⁴ It differs from these if the Confessor merely says that someone will return to him, since a penitent can and in fact does return for reasons other than those listed by the Author; and, moreover, it is sometimes necessary to tell someone this so that free access to the Confessor may lie open to the penitent. But what the Author adds, that the penitent would not take this ill, pertains to this case.

4. One who rebukes a penitent in a loud voice or in another manner intelligible to bystanders ⁵, for this is both grave for the penitent and introduces into others the suspicion that he confessed grave sins; a fortiori if by raising his voice excessively he were to repeat the sins of the penitent or question him about their circumstances.

⁵ Understand this unless it is established that the penitent is rebuked for another cause, for example, on account of importunities, etc.

5. One who speaks with another Confessor about the sins of some penitent, even if he confessed the same sins to each.

6. One who, after hearing the confessions of a 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. Likewise, one who so narrates sins known from confession that the hearers can by some reason conjecture or suspect who committed them.

7. One who, when narrating the sins of some person which he knew outside confession, adds some circumstance known from confession alone; or one who uses knowledge from confession to determine or confirm the matter more precisely.

666. • 8. One who should say that he heard a grave sin in such a monastery, even if he did not name the person, because the individual Religious of that community suffer detriment ⁶. A fortiori, one would violate the seal who should say that such sins are committed in that community. It is otherwise, however, if he should say that he heard the grave sin of some Religious in general without naming his Order, because this is neither a revelation of the seal nor does it redound to the burden of the penitent or of any Order, since among the various Orders there are not lacking some less good Religious. But scandal to the laity must be carefully guarded against.

⁶ If the individual Religious of that house suffer detriment, it is manifest that he who confessed the sin is also a participant in the infamy and burden, since he too is a part of that house; and hence arises the true reason why this turns to the prejudice of the seal.

St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 654) attributes the opposite opinion, which denies that the seal is violated through this, to Escobar (book 16, no. 752), and, in Escobar, to Nugno, Fagundez, Candido, and Henriquez, whom, however, I know not how, he afterward alleges for the other contrary opinion. Moreover, Henriquez (book 6, chapter 21, no. 6, note e) brings forward for himself Navarrus, Ledesma, Victoria, Mantica, and other more recent authors, as he says; to these, from Diana (volume 1, treatise 8, resolution 12), Malderus can also be added. But two things concerning these occur as needing observation. For, first, most of them discuss not a Monastery or Community but a Religion or Religious Order. Second, they deny that the seal is violated in the strict sense only to this extent, and indeed merely by way of opinion, insofar as such a Confessor can be punished as a revealer of confession, as Nugno says in Diana (volume 1, treatise 8, resolution 11, no. 3), or, as Malderus has it, insofar as he can be punished with the ordinary penalty inflicted against breakers of the seal. For the rest, these Doctors do not deny that one sins more or less gravely according to the quality of the crime. Indeed, Fagundez (On the Second Precept of the Church, book 6, chapter 5, no. 12) expressly admits with Suarez that one sins against the seal. Suarez has these things on this argument (On Penance, disputation 33, section 3, no. 8): One must take the greatest care lest the community to which such a person belongs be offended, as if he should designate a RELIGION in particular, because in truth this now redounds to a notable burden of the penitent on account of the injury which is done to the Community. See St. Antoninus and Navarrus, Peter Soto and Ledesma, who says that in the strict sense this is a breaking of the seal. But Navarrus says that in the strict sense it is not against the seal, although it is a sin. But surely it is not just any sin, but one against the Sacrament; therefore it is also against the seal. And Escobar, after he had said (loc. cit.) that a Confessor of this kind sins most gravely while he involves so great a Community in infamy, concludes that a priest speaking so incautiously is indeed worthy to be barred from this most grave ministry, which requires men endowed with prudence.

Since these things are so, and since the aforesaid Authors say these things not of a Monastery or Community but of a Religious Order, or certainly also of a Religious Order, while they themselves acknowledge that they have held a more lax way than others in this matter, the opinion which St. Alphonsus embraced, surely much more lax, concerning one who detracts from some Religious Order from knowledge of confession will with difficulty be admitted. For after he said (loc. cit.) that the seal is violated if the Confessor says that a Religious from such a Community confessed a grave sin to him, or that such sins are committed in that Community, he immediately adds: Not so, as Father Concina says..., if he merely said that he had heard the sin of a Religious of a certain Order, because this is neither a revelation of the seal nor does it redound to the burden of the penitent, since in every Order there are some bad men; hence neither does scandal arise nor is the Religion defamed, unless that Religion were of stricter observance. These things are not only against the opinion of all Theologians, and also of those who seemed to hold a more lax opinion about this, but are supported by reasons which no one will easily admit.

And surely who would seriously say that the penitent is not burdened by this? Grant, indeed, that his person is not betrayed; but will it not be grave for the penitent that from his confession an imprudent Confessor takes occasion to defame the whole Order? Indeed, does not the penitent himself, as a member of the same Community, as Suarez also observed above, participate in the infamy? Indeed, this can deservedly appear so grave that no one can call into doubt that a penitent who prudently believes that his sin will thus be revealed by the Confessor can conceal it in confession; for there is a sufficient cause, namely, the danger of infamy both to himself and to his own Order.

But as for what is added, that neither scandal nor infamy to the Religion arises because in every Order there are some bad men, no one will easily admit it. For that there are some bad men in every Order is customarily based partly upon that general reason that not even the College of the Apostles lacked its Judas, and partly upon light conjectures and uncertain and empty rumors. Moreover, the lighter the conjectures of the multitude are, the more atrocious surely becomes the injury of the Confessor who reveals. And even if some religious family did not have a good odor among the people, would not its infamy be notably increased and confirmed by so authentic a testimony of the Confessor? When this report has become widespread, are not the individual persons of some Order customarily despised among the people as though each had perpetrated that crime? Finally, does not a burden far from slight, does not grave scandal, arise even if only the memory of these things is renewed? Add that, in the concrete, the case of a Religious Order scarcely differs from the case of one monastery. For when the Confessor says that he heard this in confession, the matter is surely circumscribed to some monasteries, at most, from which some Religious could have approached him. Add that certain religious families consist of very few monasteries, and indeed an entire Order sometimes consists of not very many men.

To conclude, perhaps one would not wander completely from the truth who should suspect that the opinion which we have reported is owed to a mere slip of the eyes, whereby those things which could be said by some concerning a Religious man generally were transferred to a Religious of a particular Order. For although Suarez, as is evident from the cited words, scarcely distinguishes the two cases with others and judged that one sins against the seal both if by revelation you injure some particular Religious Order and if, with the particular Order kept silent, you speak generally about a Religious man, nevertheless there were not lacking some (see Candidus, disquisition 24, article 50, doubt 8) who judged that in the latter case the aforesaid inconveniences at least in some measure cease; with these the Author also agrees.

** The VV. oppose forty-two columns (pp. 624-645) to this Note. But, as often elsewhere, or better, if ever elsewhere, here surely one must lament the method to which they devote themselves. Otherwise, so enormous a mass does not need a lengthy reply.

The VV. take the first head of accusation (p. 625) from these words of the Note: Most of them (the Authors) discuss not a Monastery or Community but a Religion or Religious Order. Against these the VV. establish (p. 626): St. Alphonsus, when speaking of a Community, rightly ascribes to the negative opinion the Authors alleged by him for the same.

Reply. First, since St. Alphonsus professes as the truer opinion the one which teaches that in the proposed case the seal is broken, it ought indeed to have happened rather pleasingly even to the VV. that even those whom the holy Doctor thought opposed to him, relying upon the words of Escobar from whom he copied those allegations, were shown to agree with the holy Doctor. But the fervor for accusing these poor Notes never fails to prevail among the VV. Second, whatever may be the case concerning this, it had first to be observed that in the Note other Authors besides those alleged by the holy Doctor are brought forward; then, that the Note does not say that all but that most discuss a Religious Order rather than a Monastery. Therefore, there was no reason for the VV. immediately to think that St. Alphonsus, who at length, as we said, had merely copied his allegations from Escobar, was directly attacked by these things. But third, is it true that all the Authors alleged by St. Alphonsus discuss a Community or Monastery? Let this now be conceded to some extent concerning Escobar and Fagundez; but can the same be said of the other three, namely, Nugno, Henriquez, and Candidus?

And the words of Nugno, in Diana, volume 1, treatise 8, resolution 11, no. 3, are: Some say that he sins by the sin of revelation of the seal who, even if he does not name the person, nevertheless names the PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS ORDER to which such a penitent belonged; and this is a probable opinion; nevertheless, it does not appear so certain that such a Confessor could be punished as a revealer of Confession.* Therefore, does Nugnus discuss a Monastery, or a particular Religious Order? Why do the VV. suppress these things and, contrary to the evidence, establish that thesis and, in addition, charge the Note with false accusation?

The same is to be said of Henriquez, who, in that same place (book 6, or On Penance 3, chapter 21, no. 6), which Escobar, copied by St. Alphonsus, indicates, has thus: To narrate sins, even mortal sins, heard in confession, when knowledge of the person can in no way be reached, is not contrary to the seal; nor is it so if he says that in Seville, or in such a place where it is established that he heard the confessions of many, grave crimes are committed...; or if concerning A CERTAIN RELIGIOUS ORDER IN GENERAL he says that offices are sold, or that some other sin is customarily committed. Where here is there mention of a Monastery?

Vincentius Candidus, however (Disquisitions 24, On Confession, article 10, doubt 8), does indeed speak of a Monastery; but he goes over to the opinion opposite to that which St. Alphonsus himself, after Escobar, attributes to him. Behold his words: I say thirteenthly: But if the Confessor speaks of some place not very extensive, or if concerning some Monastery in which he heard Confessions he says that grave crimes are committed in it, he seems to break the seal of confession; for it can happen that a suspicion which is not slight is conceived concerning some particular person, and that some suffer loss of reputation (thus incorrectly printed iacturae famam for iacturam famae). See St. Antoninus and Coninck. Candidus, namely, uses the same reason which St. Alphonsus also brings forward for his same opinion, saying (book 6, no. 654, doubt 2): The reason is that then the individual members of that Convent suffer harm. And thus the Confessor will likewise violate the seal if he says that such sins are committed in that Convent. Far be it from us to accuse the holy Doctor Alphonsus here, since he merely copied these citations from Escobar; nevertheless, when from those five citations we find three wrongly adduced, how do the VV. (l.c.) write with the greatest confidence that St. Alphonsus, when speaking of a Convent, rightly ascribes to the negative opinion the Authors cited by himself for it?

But this also deservedly displeases us: while the VV., as though about to prove their aforesaid thesis, lead their readers about through eleven columns (pp. 626-631), they in some way reserve its proof and the refutation of the Note for the following article, writing (p. 627): It is not true that most of them (the Authors whom Father Ballerini enumerates) discuss not a Monastery or Convent but a Religious Order. Some speak of an Order; others, however, of an Order and a Monastery; but very many, whom we shall allege in Article 2, speak of a Monastery or Convent alone. Accordingly, anyone reading these things would now believe that in the following second Article the VV. were going to show both that St. Alphonsus rightly ascribes to the negative opinion the Authors cited by himself, and that the Authors enumerated by Ballerini, at least most of them, speak not of a Religious Order but of a Monastery, and indeed incline to the negative opinion. Yet (what otherwise can scarcely seem credible) the reader will finally discover that he is being wonderfully trifled with through these things. For in that entire mass of material in the second article, through seventeen columns, of those three Authors cited by St. Alphonsus only Candidus is mentioned, whom we have already seen above to be falsely alleged. But of the Authors enumerated by Ballerini (wonderful to say!) not even a word in those seventeen columns. And the VV. had indeed brought forward in the first article some texts of Navarrus; but even in these not the least mention occurs either of a Religious Order or of a Monastery or Convent. They bring forward from book 6, chapter 21, no. 6, a text of Henriquez; but Henriquez names a certain religious order, by no means a monastery. What, then, is to be concluded from this? Let it be permissible to conclude thus: This method of disputing concerning theological matters, and of resolving the objections of those who dissent, was never employed by the holy Doctor Alphonsus, nor ever approved by him.

We said above that it must be conceded that Escobar and Fagundez, to whom we shall also add Aversa, denied that one sins against the sacramental seal if someone says that he heard a grave sin in such a monastery, provided, however, that he keeps the person silent. But we added that this must be conceded ONLY TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. Why, then?

The reason, though most briefly, had been indicated in the Note by these words: Only to this extent do some deny that the seal is violated strictly speaking, insofar as such a Confessor can be punished as a revealer of Confession, as Nugnus says; or, as Malderus has it, insofar as he can be punished by the ordinary penalty inflicted against breakers of the seal. Namely, the object of the sacramental seal is not understood in the same way by all theologians, and therefore some seem to restrict it more narrowly, while others extend it more broadly. For there are those who repeatedly employ seal in the sense in which it is designated in ecclesiastical law; and for that reason, with Navarrus (Manual, chapter 8, no. 3), they restrict its object thus: Christ willed that under this obligation there should be included not only mortal and venial sins, but also their circumstances, necessarily or voluntarily confessed, and any other things whatsoever which, although they are not sins, nevertheless are such that, when they are disclosed, it can be disclosed, directly or indirectly, in general or in particular, that he who confessed had confessed that he committed some mortal sin or some particular venial sin, even if it were most slight. Therefore, according to these, the seal is not said to be injured properly and strictly unless from the revelation it can be known that someone, for example, Thomas, had confessed some mortal sin or some particular venial sin. Hence the consequence drawn by Navarrus (l.c., no. 16): The Confessor acted badly, although he is not called a revealer of confession, by speaking thus: In such a place (the name of the place in which he hears confessions being expressed) grave crimes are perpetrated. And in fact the text of the Law (Omnis utriusque) has thus: But let him (the priest) take care altogether lest by word or sign or any other manner whatsoever he in any respect betray the sinner; but if he should need more prudent counsel, let him cautiously seek it without any expression of the person; since we decree that he who shall have presumed to reveal a sin disclosed to him in the penitential judgment is not only to be deposed from the priestly office, but is also to be thrust into a strict monastery to do penance. From these things it is evident that for an injury of the seal of this kind there is required the revelation both of the sin and of the sinner.

Most commonly, however, the object of the seal is understood according as, once the divine institution of the Sacrament and its obligation are posited, the natural law itself requires the prohibition of any revelation whatsoever which can impede confession and render it odious; so that the Confessor can be guilty of violating the seal even if from his revelation it is not known that, for example, Andrew had confessed a mortal sin or some particular venial sin. To the point is Lucius Ferraris (Seal of the Sacrament, no. 22): Under the sacramental seal fall all sins, both mortal and venial, not only of the penitent himself but also of an accomplice. Likewise, the circumstances of sins and natural defects by the revelation of which infamy or some other inconvenience can befall the penitent, and confession thus be rendered odious; for such circumstances, for example, that someone is illegitimate, is of obscure lineage, and things of this kind, cannot be manifested by the Confessor without breaking the sacramental seal. COMMON. And the reason is that the sacramental seal obliges one to conceal everything which can render confession odious; but through the revelation of the aforesaid and similar things confession is rendered odious, since a burden is thus imposed, etc. And that the sacramental seal is employed by the holy Doctor Alphonsus in precisely this sense, and that questions are resolved by him according to this sense, is a matter most certain.

With these things premised, let us return to Escobar. Concerning the Confessor who says, A certain Religious from that Convent confessed a grave sin to me, he writes (book 16, no. 752): That Confessor sins most gravely, branding the community with so great an infamy; nevertheless, he is not a violator of the sacred seal. But St. Alphonsus, on the contrary (book 6, no. 654): Then the seal is violated; the reason is that, although the person is not then revealed, nevertheless, since the revelation issues in the infamy of the whole community, it also redounds to the burden of the penitent.... And therefore from such a revelation confession would be rendered odious to him. Each, therefore, asserts that in the case the Confessor sins gravely. Why, however, does one deny and the other affirm that the Confessor is a violator of the seal, unless because one judges concerning the seal according to ecclesiastical law and the other according to divine law? But the mind of Escobar shines forth better from these things (l.c., no. 750): When the place is not so extensive and the sin or vice is not so public, it does not appear that this can be done without harm to the inhabitants, and sometimes without injury to confession, on account of the occasion which would be furnished for suspicions. I think, nevertheless, that for this reason the penalties of one revealing confession are for the most part not incurred, because the sins of the penitent are not manifested, but those of the town. Thus he. Moreover, in these words you have Escobar expressly employing violation of the seal according to ecclesiastical law, under which penalties are inflicted. Furthermore, you have him admitting that sin is thus committed with injury to confession. But this, namely, is the sin concerning which Suarez, cited in the Note, said: But certainly it is not just any sin, but one against the Sacrament; therefore also against the seal.

But say precisely the same also of Fagundez. For he indeed appears here to prefer the opinion of Navarrus and Henriquez to the opinion of Suarez. But he could not affirm, nor did he affirm, this as regards a Monastery, since neither of them, as we said, makes any mention of a Monastery. He adhered, therefore, to the aforesaid Authors insofar as with them he judged concerning violation of the sacramental seal according to ecclesiastical law. But, no differently from Escobar, he then falls back into the doctrine of Suarez. For (On the Second Precept of the Church, book 6, chapter 4, no. 2), where he speaks of Confessors who injure a community or religious family by naming a religious order in particular or a Monastery, he indeed adds: Ledesma and Suarez think, strictly speaking, that this is a revelation of the seal; but Henriquez and Navarrus, on the contrary, think that, strictly speaking, it is not contrary to the seal. Nevertheless, with the latter he adds that it can sometimes be a mortal sin of scandal, sometimes one having the malice of infamy to the whole community. But Fagundez himself (ibid., chapter 1, no. 2) derived the malice of violating the seal from this: that it is contrary to two virtues, first, against the virtue of justice, insofar as it is contrary to the reputation of one's neighbor; second, against the virtue of religion and the reverence due to the Sacrament, toward which it commits irreverence and inflicts the greatest injury... by rendering (it) burdensome and fearful to men. Now, is irreverence and injury of this kind toward the Sacrament absent whenever, through an imprudent revelation of those things which were heard by a priest in confession, a religious family or Monastery is bespattered with infamy? Does the Sacrament of Penance become any less intolerable and odious? Therefore, there remains one sole reason for reconciling Fagundez with Fagundez, namely that which we have stated: that he understands in the stricter sense that violation of the seal which is the object of ecclesiastical law.

But now let us pass to those things which the VV. oppose against the second part of the Note. They prefix to Article 2 this title (p. 631): The false and rash assertion of Ballerini, that the doctrine of St. Alphonsus is lax and contrary to the opinion of all Theologians, is refuted. And concerning the rashness they add these things (p. 632): Either this assertion of Ballerini is right and to be believed, and then we can scarcely understand why the Holy See, in the solemn declaration, "Nothing is worthy of censure," did not condemn at least this opinion; or the assertion of Father Ballerini is of singular rashness.

Reply. I deny the supposition, namely, that in the Note the opinion of St. Alphonsus is designated as lax. For it presents an altogether different sense when you call an opinion absolutely lax or strict, and when comparatively, and therefore relatively to another, you call an opinion laxer or stricter. Hence it comes about that you can comparatively call some opinion stricter which, nevertheless, you would wrongly call strict. And an example is at hand in the present question, even as regards St. Alphonsus; for it will be permissible to call his doctrine that a Confessor breaks the seal who says that a grave sin was committed in this or that monastery stricter than the opinion of Escobar or Aversa, who deny this; but it is by no means permissible to call it strict. In like manner, we shall most truly call the common opinion concerning the absolution of recidivists laxer than the opinion of St. Alphonsus, as we saw elsewhere; but someone would badly conclude thence that the common opinion is condemned by us as lax. That the opinion of Concina, adopted by St. Alphonsus, is called laxer in the Note in a comparative sense of this kind is also manifest from the fact that other Authors are there presented admitting that in this matter they held a laxer course than others. For someone would argue entirely badly that those Authors therefore admit that they held lax doctrine. Thus the VV. impose this most grave charge with less consideration, that there the opinion of St. Alphonsus is rashly branded with a censure contrary to the declaration of the Apostolic See to the Theologians: Nothing is worthy of censure.

Now the VV. stuff seventeen columns (pp. 631-640) with the texts of authors in order to show that it is falsely affirmed that the doctrine of theologians is contrary to the opinion of Concina adopted by St. Alphonsus, namely, that if a Confessor says that he heard in confession a sin of a Religious of a certain Order, the seal is not broken.

For the sake of clarity and brevity, let us divide this great crowd of Authors into various classes. First, therefore, let seven come forward: Mendo, Mazzotta, Billuart, Leonard Jansen, Gotti, Reuter, and Cuniliati. Their texts, brought forward by the VV., merely say with St. Alphonsus that the seal is violated if the Confessor says that a Religious from such a Convent confessed a grave sin to him. Let the reply be brief: I concede the antecedent; I deny the consequence. For the VV. wish to argue thus: These Authors condemn it if the sin of a Religious from such a convent is revealed; therefore, they do not condemn it if the sin of a Religious from such an Order is revealed. Wrongly indeed. The one true conclusion could at most be this: Therefore, they do not touch upon the other question. But not even this is altogether true. For the reasons which are brought forward for the former case, namely, the burden of the penitent, the odium of confession, the consequent infamy, and scandal, have place also in the latter case. Therefore, tacitly but implicitly, they comprehend the other case also.

Let thirteen others follow: Coninck, Bonacina, Laymann, Palaus, Trullench, Tamburini, Sporer, the Salmanticenses, Gotti, Reuter, Struggl, Cuniliati, and Henricus a S. Ignatio. Their texts, transcribed by the VV., hold that a Confessor who says that grave sins are committed in such a place is to be condemned if the place is not very extensive; otherwise, if the place is extensive, for example, a large city. Reply. I concede the antecedent; I deny the consequence and the parity. For, as is evident, the reason of burden, scandal, and infamy consequent upon a revelation of this kind is not equal in both cases. For can Religious of a certain Order bear this revelation with as tranquil a mind as the citizens of a certain large City? Indeed, the VV. themselves (p. 645) imagine (as we shall see) that St. Alphonsus excuses a Confessor speaking thus concerning a large civil community, but does not excuse one speaking thus concerning a Religious Order, however large, because, namely (they say), a religious Community is more easily defamed and suffers harm.

There follow eight, namely, Valentia, Herincx, Lopez, Jansen, Henricus a S. Ignatio, Antonius Fernandez, Ioannes Corradus, and Aversa, whose texts, as the VV. allege them, merely hold that the sacramental seal is not violated if the person is in no way indicated, although a sin heard in confession is revealed. This assertion proves too much in itself. St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 654) says: More truly, the Confessor who says that a Religious from such a convent confessed a grave sin to him breaks the seal. Do you see the seal violated although the person is not revealed? And again (ibid.), to the question, Does a Confessor violate the seal if he asserts that grave crimes are perpetrated in some place, which he himself heard in confession? the same holy Doctor replies: The most common and by far more probable opinion teaches that if the town is small (suppose it consists of about fewer than three thousand people), then the seal is violated. The reason is that, ALTHOUGH THE PERSON IS NOT THEN REVEALED, nevertheless, since the revelation issues in 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 a revelation confession would be rendered odious to him. It is otherwise, however, if the town is large and the crimes are public. Therefore the aforesaid assertion is true if taken positively, by saying: A Confessor who reveals even the person violates the seal; but by no means if taken negatively, by saying: The seal is never broken if the person also is not revealed. Let the reply, therefore, be: I distinguish the antecedent. If no other cause is added on account of which the seal is broken, let it pass; otherwise, I deny it. But in our case, although the person is not then revealed (as St. Alphonsus teaches), nevertheless, since the revelation issues in 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 a revelation confession would be rendered odious to him. Therefore, I deny the consequence.

Four remain, namely, Candidus, Escobar, Stoz, and Roncaglia. But enough has already been said above concerning Candidus and Escobar. Stoz is brought forward because (Tribunal of Penance, part 2, no. 227), unless the offenses are public and notorious, or unless the community is such and so large that all can prudently judge it not to lack weeds of this kind, he does not excuse from the crime of unjustly defaming the community, nor from a sin against charity, indeed not even from violation of the seal on account of the danger lest the persons also become known, especially if the place or body of Regulars... is not extensive and numerous. Hence the VV. seem to wish to conclude that all these inconveniences are absent if the body of Regulars is extensive and numerous. Reply. I distinguish. That Stoz also intermingles a body of Regulars which is not extensive can be admitted as regards the danger of revealing the person: let it pass. That it can also be understood as regards the injury of defaming and, in addition, as regards rendering confession odious: I deny it. For the same Stoz adds with Dicastillo that this is also contrary to the seal for this reason, that it plainly renders confession odious. Nor will the VV. deny that confession would become odious even to Regulars, indeed much more to Regulars than to others, if they knew or suspected that from their sacramental confession the Confessor would take occasion to defame their entire Order. Finally, concerning Roncaglia, whose assertion appears to be joined with the assertion of Daniel Concina, there is no need to add anything to those things which were said concerning this opinion in the Note.

Let us conclude, therefore, that that entire jumble of texts of so many Authors, which the VV. gathered with immense labor, contributes absolutely nothing to their purpose, namely, that they confirm the assertion of Concina by the authority of the schools.

Now to the third Article (pp. 640-643), whose title is: Against the arguments brought forward in the Note, the doctrine of St. Alphonsus is clearly expounded. To which it is surely easy to reply: Could the doctrine of St. Alphonsus have been expounded more clearly than by citing his words with the greatest exactness? Yet in the Note the opinion of the holy Doctor was expounded integrally, to the letter. Nevertheless, the exposition added by the VV. was not useless, inasmuch as it makes sufficiently evident that there was, in the end, no cause for them to attack our Note with so much heat.

Thus, after transcribing one or another text of Concina, they observe first (p. 641): The sole question treated here is whether the Confessor breaks the seal, but not whether he speaks licitly. Reply. The special question here concerns the revelation of a sin which turns to the burden of the penitent, to the odium of confession, and to the infamy of a religious community. But according to St. Alphonsus the seal is broken by this revelation, as is evident from his doctrine brought forward above. Therefore, a discussion of some other illicit speech, such as, for example, a lie, is not to be intermingled here.

They add secondly: St. Alphonsus, no differently from Concina, supposes a large Religious Order. Reply 1. The words of the holy Doctor Alphonsus, which are exactly transcribed in the Note, present no distinction between a large and a non-large Religious Order. 2. It was already observed in the Note that, in the concrete, the case of a Religious Order scarcely differs from the case of one monastery; for when the Confessor says that he heard this in confession, the matter is certainly circumscribed to a few monasteries (at most) from which some Religious could have come to him, unless the extraordinary hypothesis is imagined of a Confessor who has traveled through the most remote lands. But the cited text does not restrict the assertion of St. Alphonsus to this extraordinary hypothesis. 3. Even in this extraordinary hypothesis, the burden of the penitent and the odium of his confession are not absent, from which he may suspect that, on account of it, his confreres must be affected with confusion, shame, and sorrow because of the infamy of the Order.

And indeed, the VV. themselves finally confirm our reply when they write (pp. 641-642, no. 30): If in some diocese or province there exist one or more Monasteries, the Confessor will not be able, with the seal preserved, to name this Religious Order, because certainly some would suspect one or another Monastery of the same Religious Order. The same is to be said if Monasteries do not exist there, but Religious from other Convents are present in this province or diocese, at least while passing through. Concerning these things let it be permissible to observe two points. The first is that St. Alphonsus does not exclude these cases from his general affirmation. Therefore, the VV. expound their own opinion, not the opinion of St. Alphonsus. The second is that the cause of the violated seal is reduced by them solely to the inconvenience of suspicion concerning some Monastery or some Religious passing through. But even according to the doctrine of St. Alphonsus, it is not necessary that such suspicion arise from the revelation of the Confessor, since for this the infamy of the community, the odium of confession, and the burden of the penitent suffice, as has already been said more than once.

And again, the things which in the Note are objected to the opinion of Concina, admitted by St. Alphonsus, are confirmed by the VV. when they themselves (p. 642, no. 4) admit that, in naming the Religious Order, the Confessor will rarely avoid breaking the seal unless it is established that he exercised the office of Confessor in various lands and dioceses, and he himself expresses this circumstance. Nevertheless, they urge this upon us less suitably, both because the assertion of St. Alphonsus embraces all Confessors, whether they exercised the office of Confessor in various lands or in one land or diocese, and because here again the VV. derive violation of the seal merely from the danger of revealing the penitent. But this supposition, as we have said more than once, is false.

The VV. add (ibid., no. 5) that the holy Doctor excepts: Unless that Religious Order were of stricter observance. Therefore (the VV. say), with the seal preserved, a Confessor can name only such a Religious Order in which observance is notoriously relaxed. Reply. The words of the holy Doctor do not present this sense, but he says: Nor does it redound to the burden of the penitent, since in every Order there are some bad men; whence neither does scandal arise nor is the Religious Order defamed, unless that Religious Order were of stricter observance. Therefore, according to the holy Doctor, the reason why the seal is not violated is this: because in every Order there are some bad men. To this assertion, nevertheless, he places this limit: Unless that Religious Order were of stricter observance; which exception in that context has force thus: Unless the observance is such that in that Order it is not readily supposed that there are some bad men. Moreover, as was already observed in the Note, it is false that even in that hypothesis both the burden of the penitent and the other inconveniences on account of which St. Alphonsus himself affirms that the seal is broken are absent. And surely, does not the holy Doctor himself (book 6, no. 654, doubt 1), in order that violation of the seal be avoided in the case, require in addition that the crimes be public?

Finally, the VV. (ibid., no. 6) observe that neither Concina nor St. Alphonsus speaks of poisonings, adulteries, or other grave crimes, but simply of a sin. First, Concina, whose words the VV. also bring forward, has thus there: Nor is the Order in any way defamed from the fact that it is known... that someone (a Religious) IS CRIMINAL. Therefore, if the sense of St. Alphonsus there is indeed to be measured from the words of Concina, we shall also interpret the holy Doctor thus, that he speaks of crimes or of a criminal Religious. Second, the words of St. Alphonsus, If (the Confessor) were only to say that he heard the sin of a Religious of a certain Order, are most general and embrace sins of every genus and species.

And let these things suffice to make it evident that through these expositions of the VV. nothing is detracted from the force of the difficulties which in the Note were objected to the opinion of the holy Doctor.

It will be useful here to note certain things concerning those which the VV. (p. 645) have in the Conclusion of the Question.

Thus they write: Although (St. Alphonsus) excuses a Confessor speaking concerning a large civil Community, nevertheless he does not excuse one speaking concerning a Religious Order, however large, because he has a just and prudent reason for the distinction between the two Communities, insofar as a religious Community is more easily defamed and suffers harm. Reply. May the Most Illustrious and Most Religious VV. pardon us; but these things are shown to be evidently false from the words of St. Alphonsus, who plainly has the opposite.

For, giving the reason why a Confessor of this kind does not violate the seal, he writes: Because this is neither a revelation of the seal nor DOES IT REDOUND TO THE BURDEN OF THE PENITENT, since in every Order there are some bad men; whence NEITHER DOES SCANDAL ARISE NOR IS THE RELIGIOUS ORDER DEFAMED. How, therefore, do the VV. write that St. Alphonsus does not excuse this Confessor because the Religious Order is defamed, while St. Alphonsus says in explicit words that this Confessor is excused because the Religious Order is not defamed?

The VV. add (ibid.): Nevertheless (St. Alphonsus) deservedly admits the opinion of Concina, that a Confessor who speaks concerning the sin of only one Religious, naming the Religious Order, does not break the seal, provided that the Religious Order is large and notoriously relaxed, and that the sins are such as customarily occur among the relaxed and have notoriously occurred in this (Religious Order), and likewise that every danger of suspicion concerning some monastery in particular is absent. Reply. These things indeed are most opportune to be appended in a Note to this passage of the holy Doctor when the new Edition of the Work which the VV. are preparing comes forth; for the VV. themselves now admit that without these supports the bare and simple assertion of the holy Doctor of itself conduces to breaking the seal. But it is one thing that it is necessary to fortify the assertion of the holy Doctor with these supports, and another that the assertion can be admitted of itself, as it stands.

Finally, the VV. (ibid.) conclude that the doctrine of St. Alphonsus in this matter, and particularly the opinion just expounded, which the holy Doctor judges reasonable and Father Ballerini most sharply attacks, is not only not lax, but rather more rigorous than that which very many Doctors, even the most rigorous, such as Alexander Natalis and Henricus a S. Ignatio, hold. Reply.

Let it pass that here also, in passing, the VV. renew the accusation, indeed less justly, as we have already seen, as though in the Note the opinion of the holy Doctor were marked as lax. As regards what is now at issue, it certainly does not appear why either the opinion of Alexander Natalis or that of Henricus a S. Ignatio concerning the present question is said by them to be laxer than the opinion of Concina and St. Alphonsus, if indeed this opinion of the holy Doctor is considered as it is expressed by him and inspected in itself, and not clothed with those appendages with which the VV. have adorned it from every side. Whatever may be the case concerning this, since the VV. ascribe to these two Authors, whom they themselves here call the most rigorous, that they hold doctrine laxer than the opinion of St. Alphonsus, which someone might call exceedingly benign, and almost more benign than is right, considering, namely, so many supports and appendages with which they themselves judged it necessary to adorn, sustain, and fortify it; truly, they now have an example of that which elsewhere (p. 659, in the Note) they ask of us, namely, of Authors who are commonly held to be more rigorous and who, otherwise, not rarely inclined to those laxities which no one among the most benign ever admitted. And, for the rest, the VV. will indeed be able to see very many examples of this kind among the Authors where they dissolve the calumny cast upon the benign opinion, as St. Alphonsus himself calls it, concerning the use of a probable opinion, as though this were a wellspring of laxities. For there they place before the eyes of their more rigorous adversaries laxities found among those writers who are customarily vaunted as followers of the more rigorous opinion. But it is not part of the present purpose to linger over these things.

9. He who, after confession, looks upon the penitent with a stern eye, does not address him as he was accustomed to do before, and shows by harsher words, gestures, or his whole manner of acting that he remembers his sins, is thinking about them at that moment, and esteems him less than before.

667. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Can a Confessor deny Holy Communion to a penitent to whom he previously denied absolution, if the latter approaches the sacred table?

Reply. No, even if he asks secretly, because the Confessor cannot use knowledge from confession to act externally against the penitent ⁷. - St. Ligorius, no. 658, and others, against some.

⁷ De Lugo adds an exception (disputation 23, no. 126) if he is a public sinner. The Confessor could nevertheless (he says) repel a prostitute or a public usurer from the Eucharist in public by reason of knowledge which he has outside confession concerning that public sin. But if he says, "Yet I confessed to you," he can reply, "Nevertheless, your amendment must be evident to the Church through public satisfaction, which is not yet evident."

QUESTION 2. Does he break the seal who says that such a vice reigns in a city or town, or that grave crimes are committed there?

Reply. I distinguish. Yes, if the place is sufficiently small, for example, if it consists of approximately fewer than three thousand persons. Otherwise, if the town is large and public crimes are frequently perpetrated there. - St. Ligorius, no. 654, and others most commonly.

668. • QUESTION 3. Can preachers use knowledge from confession to speak concerning those things of which they would not have thought unless they had heard confessions?

Reply. Yes, provided danger of revelation and burden to the penitents are excluded. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, no. 654. - Elbel, no. 525.

The reason is: first, because it can be a burden to no one that priests sometimes direct themselves in sermons from knowledge of confession, provided that burden is not present here and now. Therefore, they can inveigh generally against vices which secretly prevail. Second, because this would be an excessively grave burden for the Confessor; for he would always fear lest in preaching he use knowledge from confession. Nevertheless, let the Confessor beware lest he speak publicly concerning the altogether particular sins of one or another penitent, especially if he gives a sermon before some small community, for example, in a monastery of Nuns, etc.; because then a burden could easily be introduced. - Elbel, ibid.

669. • QUESTION 4. Can a Priest who knows from confession that ambushes are being prepared for him flee, or in some other manner forestall the harm?

Reply 1. Yes, if by such precaution the sin accused is in no way manifested to others, nor is any burden brought upon the penitent. - Thus St. Ligorius, no. 659. - De Lugo, disputation 23, no. 108, etc.

Reply 2. No, if he cannot flee without in some manner manifesting that some sin was accused by the penitent. The reason is that that flight would be an indirect revelation of the confessed sin; and although the Confessor were to feign flight under some pretext, he would nevertheless always furnish a reasonable suspicion of the sin declared. - St. Ligorius, ibid., and others. De Lugo, disputation 23, no. 110, nevertheless warns that experience shows that even an indirect revelation is never necessary for escaping those dangers, since they can be met either with the permission of the penitent or by other means without breaking the seal.

670. • QUESTION 5. Can Superiors use knowledge from confession for external government, if it in no way appears that they direct themselves from that knowledge?

Reply. ALTOGETHER no, with St. Ligorius, no. 656, and others commonly, against some older Theologians who defended the affirmative opinion. - The reason is that this would evidently turn to the burden of penitents; and those who knew that such a doctrine was commonly taught could be withdrawn from confession.

This is also established from various Decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, especially the Decree of Clement VIII of May 26, 1594, for Regulars, in which it is said: Both the Superiors existing at the time and the Confessors who afterward shall have been promoted to the rank of superiority are to take THE GREATEST CARE lest they use for external government that knowledge which they had in confession concerning the sins of others. In St. Ligorius, no. 656. Although this Decree was issued for Regulars, it must be extended to all Superiors, since the same reason which urges for Regulars also has force for seculars.

This is also established from a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition issued by the authority of Innocent XI in the year 1682, by which the following proposition was proscribed: It is licit to use knowledge acquired from confession, provided that this be done without direct or indirect revelation and burden to the penitent, unless something else much graver should follow from not using it, in comparison with which the former is deservedly held of no account. The Pontiff adds that Confessors can in no way use such a doctrine, even with any revelation whatsoever excluded.

671. • QUESTION 6. Can a Confessor at least sometimes use knowledge from confession, or when can he do so? Reply. According to all Theologians, he can do so in the following cases: first, to pray for the penitent, or to act more benignly toward him; second, to consult books or wise men, prudently, nevertheless, with danger of revelation excluded; third, to direct himself through experience acquired from confessions, for example, to temper rigor, and to direct himself from the confession of one in prudently questioning or instructing others, giving no suspicion of the prior confession; fourth, to reform his own morals, to correct his own defects, or to discharge his office better, for example, to cast off sloth, to watch over subjects more vigilantly, with suspicion of revelation excluded, etc.; because everyone is bound to correct his defects as soon as he adverts to them; nor can any penitent reasonably be offended that the Confessor changes his life for the better on account of things heard in confession. - St. Ligorius, no. 637.

Conclusion. In a matter so grave and so dangerous, the Confessor must be exceedingly cautious lest he utter any word, or do or intimate anything, whence there can follow even the least odium of the Sacrament, burden of the penitent, offense or scandal of any others whatsoever. Let him therefore be prudent and discreet not only in speech but in his whole manner of acting. Let him pray frequently with the Psalmist (Psalm 140, verse 3): Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth, and a door round about my lips; or with the Wise Man (Wisdom 9:4): Give me wisdom, that sitteth by thy throne.

End of the Treatise on Penance.