Article 5: The Seal of Confession

1. DEFINITION. —By the seal of confession (sigillum confessionis, secretum sacramentale) is understood the obligation of keeping secret knowledge gained through sacramental confession. ¹ 2. SOURCE OF THE OBLIGATION. —The seal of confession binds the confessor and (per accidens) all others who have knowledge of the matter of a sacramental confession through whatever means. It is absolute and, per se, admits of no exception.

¹ Cfr. H. Busembaum, S.J., Medulla Theol. Mor., 1. VI, tr. 4, c. 3: "The seal is the strictest obligation of divine law in every case, even one in which the safety of an entire kingdom would be endangered, to keep silent—even after the penitent’s death—about everything said in confession, that is, in order to sacramental absolution, whose revelation would render the Sacrament burdensome or hateful." (Ed. Tornac., 1876; Vol. I, p. 573)-

As for the penitent, though not bound by the seal, he is obliged to treat confessional matter as a natural secret, so far at least as the dignity of the Sacrament or regard for the confessor demand.

The obligation of the seal rests on the natural, on positive divine, and on ecclesiastical law.²

² Cfr. Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 495: "There is the strictest obligation to preserve the seal of confession inviolably. This is evident from natural law, indeed under three titles, namely charity, justice, and religion; from positive divine law, at least implicitly, for by Christ’s institution confession must be secret, and therefore by that very fact Christ imposed upon confessors the obligation of preserving the seal; and from ecclesiastical law, as is evident from various passages of canon law, especially from the Fourth Lateran Council, chapter 21, Both Sexes, where it is said: Let him beware altogether that the confessor in no degree betray the sinner by word, sign, or any other manner; but if he needs more prudent counsel, let him cautiously seek it without any disclosure of the person." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 438).

a) The natural law commands silence regarding that which is communicated in confidence. When a man goes to confession, he expects that his secret will be locked in the bosom of the confessor. Hence to keep the seal inviolate is a matter of strict natural duty. In many countries the civil law treats the revelation of any secret communicated in confidence as a misdemeanor. b) The positive divine law demands the inviolability of the seal because it is a necessary condition of the enforcement of the precept of confession. "Confession could not be enforced," says Bishop Linsenmann, "if priests were not bound to the strictest secrecy concerning that which is revealed to them in the confessional. Hence the seal is justified, not only by the interest of the penitent, but by the interest of confession itself." ³ "The divine command to confess one's sins," says Dr. Krieg, "would be an intolerable burden if the penitent were not assured of silence on the part of the confessor." ⁴ c) The law of the Church forbids the revelation of sacramentally confessed sins under severe penalties.⁵

³ F. X. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, p. 220.

⁴ Krieg, Wissenschaft der Seelenleitung, Vol. I, p. 515.

⁵ Codex Iuris Can., can. 889, § 1: "The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore let the confessor diligently beware of betraying the sinner in any degree by word or sign or in any other manner and for any cause." —On the penalties cfr. J. Hollweck, Die kirchlichen Strafgesetze, Mayence, 1899, pp. 332 sqq.; J. Laurentius, S.J., Inst. Iuris Eccles., n. 456, 546.

3. NATURE OF THE OBLIGATION. —The obligation of keeping the seal binds every confessor under pain of mortal sin. It is absolute, i. e., admits of no parvitas materiae, at least directly.⁶ Nor does it cease with the death of the penitent, but binds always and for ever, regardless of the inconveniences that may arise for the confessor, the penitent, a third party, or the common welfare.⁷ The confessor is not allowed to remind the penitent outside of confession of anything he has heard in the sacred tribunal, much less to communicate confessional matter to others. ⁸ In some countries the civil law expressly admits the right, nay upholds the duty of the confessor to preserve the seal of confession, though sometimes with restrictions which Catholic theology cannot approve.⁹ Whether confession made to a priest is privileged in English law is a matter of doubt.¹⁰ In the United States of America the position of the question at common law is the same as in England, but some of the States have made the privilege a matter of statutory law.¹¹

⁶ Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 497: "... at least in direct revelation. The reason is that the matter, even the slightest, contains the whole nature of the precept."

⁷ Gury, op. cit., n. 495: "The obligation of the seal of confession always binds in every case, so that in no possible case is it lawful to reveal anything heard and received in confession. For the obligation of the seal of confession admits no exception, because if any exception could be given, people would always fear that such a sin might be that cause for lawfully breaking the seal, and consequently the Sacrament would become hateful. Moreover, no good to be obtained or evil to be avoided can compensate for the evil of hatred of the Sacrament."

⁸ Cfr. N. Knopp, Der kath. Seelsorger als Zeuge vor Gericht, Ratisbon 1849.

⁹ F. H. Vering, Lehrbuch des Kir chenre elites, 3rd ed., Freiburg 1893, pp. 211, 739 sqq.

¹⁰ Cfr. R. S. Nolan in the Cath. Encyclopedia, XIII, 649 sqq.

¹¹ C. Zollmann, American Civil Church Law, N. Y., 1917, pp. 333 sq.

What a priest hears in sacramental confession, he hears not as a man, but as the representative of God, and hence, when asked as a private individual, he may deny knowledge which he possesses only from confession. In acting thus he does not employ a purely mental reservation because every one knows that a priest, if asked for information, even in court, answers merely as a man, and not as the vicar of God.¹² The case would be different if he were expressly asked whether he knew of a thing through confession. He would then not be allowed to say no because this would be a manifest untruth or might involve a violation of the seal —an untruth if he really had the knowledge which he was asked to betray; a violation of the seal if he knew nothing about the matter in question. His duty in such an emergency would be to denounce the question as improper and refuse to answer even at the risk of life.¹³

¹² St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, Supplem., qu. 11, art. 1, ad 3: "A man is brought forward as a witness only as a man, and therefore without injury to conscience he can swear that he does not know what he knows only as God’s representative." —St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., J. VI, n. 646. —J. P. Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 497: "What ought a confessor to answer one who questions him about things heard in confession? Let him reply, even with an oath if necessary, that he knows nothing or has heard nothing, because he has no communicable knowledge. So say all." —G. Estius, Comment, in Sent., IV, dist. 17, n. 14: "The sense of the response will be: I do not know in that mode of knowledge according to which I am bound to answer you who question me." —Cfr. A. Lehmkuhl, S.J., Casus Conscientiae, Vol. I, 2nd ed., n. 574.

¹³ Cfr. F. Lorinser, Die Lehre von der Verwaltung des hl. Bussakramentes, 2nd ed., p. 37.

The penitent may permit the confessor to use knowledge obtained through sacramental confession, provided such permission be restricted to the penitent's own sins, (exclusively, say, of the sins of an accomplice) and no detriment is likely to accrue therefrom to the sanctity of the Sacrament; provided, furthermore, that no scandal be given.

Should a penitent wish to consult his confessor outside the confessional in regard to something mentioned in confession, the confessor may consider this an implicit permission to use his sacramental knowledge.¹⁴

¹⁴ Cfr. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, p. 222.

It is no violation of the seal, though, as a rule, inadvisable for the confessor to mention previously confessed sins in a later confession.¹⁵

¹⁵ Cfr. Gury, Comp, Theol. Mor., II, n. 499: "Can a confessor speak with a penitent about the latter’s confession? He can speak in confession about all past confessions. He can also speak after absolution, before the penitent has departed or if he returns. The reason is that although the Sacrament is complete, the judgment still morally continues. Outside the sacred tribunal he cannot say even a single word to the penitent about matters pertaining to his confession without the penitent’s permission. Except if the penitent himself first speaks about his conscience or if the confessor knows certainly that it will be welcome to the penitent."

The confessor may, if he sees fit, add something to his admonition, immediately after absolution, before the penitent leaves the confessional, and this without special permission of the penitent, because of the moral union with the confession just made.

When a priest is in doubt whether information that falls under the seal has come to him through confession or by some other channel, he is obliged to observe the secretum sacramentale.¹⁶™ 4. THE OBJECT OF THE SEAL. —The obligation of keeping secret knowledge gained through sacramental confession embraces everything that might prove disagreeable or injurious to the penitent or tend to render the Sacrament odious; in particular: a) All sins revealed by the penitent, venial as well as mortal, together with their attending circumstances and the names and deeds of accomplices; b) The penance imposed, and whatever might betray the fact that absolution was denied; c) Physical or moral defects of the penitent, e. g., illegitimate birth, scrupulosity, impatience, in so far as these defects are known to the confessor only through confession; d) Virtues, special graces or prerogatives, the disclosure of which might cause the penitent or others pain or inconvenience; e) The fact that one has gone to confession, if the penitent wishes to conceal it or if his interests demand secrecy.¹⁷

¹⁶ Cfr. St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., 1. VI, n. 633; Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 497: "The confessor is bound by the seal even when it is doubtful whether something was said by the penitent in order to confession."

¹⁷ Cfr. St. Alphonsus, Theologia Mor., 1. VI, n. 640-644; Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 502-504.

The confessor is bound to abstain from all words, signs, or other indications from which the nature of the matter revealed to him in confession or anything that falls under the seal might be inferred. Hence he is not permitted to deny holy Communion to a penitent whom he has refused to absolve, provided, of course, he knows of his unworthiness only through confession, and the penitent demands the Holy Eucharist in the ordinary way.¹⁸

¹⁸ Conc. Lat. IV., c. 21 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 437 sq.)

5. THE SUBJECT OF THE SEAL. —By the subject of the seal we mean the person bound to observe it. That person is primarily the confessor or any layman who may have wrongfully impersonated a priest in the tribunal of penance; ¹⁹ secondarily, all who have cooperated in confession, e. g., the superior to whom the penitent has applied for absolution from reserved sins; the interpreter through whom he has confessed his sins; any one whom the confessor, with the penitent's permission, has consulted or asked for advice, or who has written out the penitent's sins at his request, or who has accidentally (casu) or purposely (furtive) overheard the confession or otherwise obtained a knowledge of it.²⁰

¹⁹ Cfr. St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., 1. VI, n. 645. —Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 498: "Every confessor is primarily bound by the seal, whether true or pretended and regarded as legitimate by mistake, and consequently even a layman who should pretend to be a priest and hear a confession. The reason is that whenever anyone confesses in order to the Sacrament, whoever hears him thereby contracts the obligation of the seal; otherwise hatred of the Sacrament would result. So say all."

²⁰ Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 889, I 2. —Cf. Gury, Compendium Theol. Mor., Vol. II, n. 498: "Those who become participants in a confession are secondarily bound, that is, all those to whom knowledge of the confession comes in any way, whether from the confession itself or from means ordered to it. From the confession itself, because the matter accused comes to them for the same reason for which the obligation of the seal is given, namely, lest hatred of the Sacrament be created; from the means, because hatred of the means redounds upon the end itself. Hence the following are bound by the seal: interpreters employed in making a confession; superiors from whom, outside the Sacrament, the faculty of absolving or receiving absolution from a reserved case is sought; those who, while someone is confessing, hear a sin either deliberately or even blamelessly, and likewise others who hear it from them; those who write the confession of persons uneducated in or ignorant of the confessor’s language whenever the confession could scarcely be made otherwise; doctors consulted by the confessor with the penitent’s permission; all those to whom the confessor sacrilegiously or imprudently disclosed sins heard in confession." tionem

Any one who has read, or heard read, the notes which served another as a necessary means of confessing his sins, (e. g., in the case of a deafmute) is obliged to keep the sacramental seal; otherwise the duty of silence is purely natural.²¹

²¹ Cfr. St. Alphonsus, Theol. obtineat Mor., 1. VI, n. 645-650 (Ed. Gaudé, III, 665); G ury, Comp. Theol. Mor., gatio II, n. 498.

As the obligation of secrecy arises solely from sacramental confession (ex omni et sold confessione sacramentali), a fictitious confession knowingly made to a layman or to an unauthorized priest does not impose the sacramental seal, but merely entails the natural obligation of keeping secret whatever is communicated in confidence. ²² 6. VIOLATION OF THE SEAL. —The seal of confession can be broken (violatio, laesio sive fr adio sigilli sacrament alis) either directly or indirectly.²³ a) It would be a direct breach of the seal were a priest to name a penitent and say he has committed such and such a sin, of which he (the priest) has knowledge only through confession, or to say that the penitent told him such a sin in confession. Any direct breach of the seal, even if the sins revealed are but slight, is a grievous violation of justice and a sacrilege.233" It is called complete (violatio plena) if it includes the name of the penitent, the character of his sin, and the fact that he confessed it. When one of these details is lacking, the violation is termed partial (partialis). b) The seal is broken indirectly when the confessor says or does, or omits to say or do, something from which others may gain a knowledge of confessional matter, or by which a penitent may be justly aggrieved or confession made odious. ²⁴ Such an indirect violation of the seal is merely a venial sin when the danger of publicity is slight or the carelessness of the confessor not grievously sinful.

²² Gury, Comp. Theol. 'Mor., II, n. n. 496: "A confession made materially to a layman or to a priest expressly lacking jurisdiction does not create the obligation of the seal, but only of a natural secret. It is otherwise if the priest is believed to be approved, because on the penitent’s part the confession is truly sacramental. If anyone approaches a confessor with the intention of deceiving or mocking him, drawing him into sin, or extorting something from him, he does not accuse himself in order to the Sacrament and there is no obligation. On the contrary, if anyone opens his conscience to a confessor without the will to receive absolution, but in order to obtain counsel or merely to satisfy a superior’s command, the obligation of the sacramental seal is present."

²³ Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, 505: "The seal can be violated in two ways: directly, by revealing something known from confession alone, for example, if it is said, Titus did this, and so forth; indirectly, by saying or doing something from which anyone can know or suspect a sin or offense of the penitent known in confession alone, or from which shame, annoyance, disgrace, loss, or any burden can arise for the penitent or for others, for example, accomplices." 23a Codex Iuris Can., can. 889.

²⁴ Cfr. Gury, op. cit., II, n. 506- 508.

Direct violation of the seal admits of no par-vitas materiac, whereas indirect violation does. Thus the matter would be slight, and the sin consequently venial, if a confessor would reveal something he had heard in confession through inadvertence, in the firm belief that the identity of the penitent was unknown or the danger of its being guessed extremely slight.

Priests who hear confession should never converse about matters heard in the confessional with lay persons, and with fellow priests only to seek advice or instruction, and always with great caution (tecto nomine), so that there is no danger of the seal being violated.

A confessor violates the seal also by saying that a certain sin is rife in a community (parish, monastery, seminary), especially if the community is small.²⁵

²⁵ St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., 1. VI, n. 654. —J. P. Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 508: "Does one break the seal who says that such a vice prevails in a city or village, or that grave crimes are committed there? The answer is affirmative if the place is sufficiently small, for example, if it does not consist of about three thousand people. It is otherwise if the town is large and public crimes are committed there rather often."

Knowledge gained in the confessional may not be used by superiors for the external government of their subjects as such a proceeding is apt to annoy the penitents, or to render the Sacrament odious, or to lead to an indirect breach of the seal.²⁶

²⁶ Cfr. Th. Slater, A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. II, p. 232. The new Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 890, forbids such use absolutely.

Provided the seal is kept intact, a confessor may, if necessary, communicate information obtained in sacramental confession to prudent and experienced persons for the purpose of seeking advice, but beyond this, he must observe strict silence.²⁷

²⁷ Cfr. the Instructio S. R. et U. Inquisitionis of June 9, 1915, which says, inter alia: "Nevertheless, ministers of this saving Sacrament are sometimes not lacking who, although suppressing everything that could in any manner betray the penitent’s person, are not afraid rashly to speak—whether in private conversations or in public sermons to the people, for the edification of their hearers, as they say—about matters submitted in sacramental confession to the power of the keys. But since in a matter of such weight and importance not only a complete and consummated injury but every appearance and suspicion of injury must be avoided with the greatest care, it is plain to all how such a custom is to be condemned. For although this is done with the substance of the sacramental secret preserved, it surely cannot fail to offend the pious ears of hearers and arouse distrust in their souls. This is altogether foreign to the nature of this Sacrament, in which the most merciful Lord Jesus blots out with the pardon of His most merciful goodness the sins which, through the frailty of human intercourse, we have com- SACRAMENTAL mitted, and utterly forgets them. Let Ordinaries take care that the priests subject to them be diligently taught never to dare, especially on the occasion of sacred missions and spiritual exercises, to touch in their public or private discourse upon anything pertaining to the matter of sacramental confession, under any form or pretext, not even incidentally, either directly or indirectly—except in a case of necessary consultation proposed according to the rules handed down by approved authors; and let them order that, in examinations for their qualification to hear confessions, they be specially examined on this matter." Ferreres, Comp. Theol. Mor.t Vol. II, n. 771 sq.

READINGS.—St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, Supplementum, qu. 11, art. 1-5.—St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, 1. V, n. 633-661. —F. X. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, pp. 220 sqq. —A. Lehmkuhl, S.J., Casus Conscientiae, Vol. II, 3rd ed., Freiburg 1907, n. 530-580.—Th. Slater, S.J., A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. II, pp. 228 sqq.—Addis and Arnold's Catholic Dictionary, 9th ed. (by T. B. Scannell), London 1917, pp. 766 sq—R. S. Nolan in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII, pp. 649-665-—Bedeley, Privilege of Religious Confession in English Courts of Justice, London 1865.—Hopwood, The Law of Confession in Criminal Cases, London 1871. —H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theologiae Moralis, Vol. III, 11th ed., pp. 491 sqq., Innsbruck 1914.—B. Kurtscheid, O.F.M., Das Beichtsiegel in seiner gcschichl. Entwicklung, Freiburg, 1912. (Engl. ed. by Marks-Preuss, St. Louis 1928).—Honoré, Le Secret de la Confession, Louvain 1924—On the Instructio of June 9, 1915, see S. Woywod, O.F.M., in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Oct., 1924, Vol. XXV, No. i, pp. 64 sqq.