§ 3. When The Seal Is Not Injured

1866. The seal IS NOT INJURED: 1. If the confessor says in general that the confession was about light matter; otherwise, if he said that it was about several venial sins, or named some fault, although minimal, in particular.

2. If he praises the conscience of the penitent. But let him beware lest he give suspicion of the bad conscience of others, who perhaps at the same time confessed to him.

3. If he says that someone confessed before him, provided the penitent by word or deed, e.g. by approaching secretly, did not signify that he wished to keep his confession occult. Likewise, if he says that he absolved such a one, provided this does not cede to the prejudice of others, about whom he does not say the same.²²

4. If he says in general that he heard such a sin in confession, yet in such a way that those hearing can by no means come to knowledge of the penitent. - Nevertheless it is always more advisable to abstain from utterances of this kind, because it can happen that the hearers (especially if they are also confessors) come to knowledge, or at least suspicion, of the penitent.

5. If he uses notice which he had outside confession. But here also one must proceed cautiously, because thereafter, where there is no revelation, there can be danger of scandal, since bystanders easily believe that matters are revealed from confession heard.²³

6. If he uses the notice of confession where no revelation intervenes, nor is any burden brought upon the penitent.²⁴ Hence the confessor can well, from that notice, reform his own morals, pray for the penitent, conduct himself more benignly toward him, consult books and wise persons, temper rigor, direct himself in questions, guard himself from dangers and occasions of spiritual or temporal damage, instruct others or admonish them in general to take care for themselves, abstain from the celebration of Mass in a polluted church, etc., provided that (as was said) every danger of revelation or burden is absent.²⁵

7. If he manifests something with the previous permission of the penitent. For since the seal is in favor of the penitent, nothing prevents him from yielding his right. Hence St. Thomas:²⁶ "The penitent can bring it about that what the priest knew only as God, he may know also as man: which he does when he licenses him to speak. And therefore if he speaks, he does not break the seal of confession."

But concerning this PERMISSION OF THE PENITENT several things occur to be noted, namely:

1. The permission must be: 1) "formal and express; for presumed, tacit, interpretative, and virtual permission (even for the good of the penitent himself) does not suffice;" - 2) free and altogether spontaneous, not arisen from force, injury, deceit, or importunate prayers, or reverential fear; - 3) not revoked; for the penitent, according to his own pleasure, can revoke it even without cause. The reason for these things is that it is a question of a very odious matter, in which permission is not wont to be given so easily. Wherefore, it is to be sought by the confessor only when a grave necessity is urging, and then only when it can be presumed with certainty that the penitent will consent willingly. For it is ordinarily clear that a priest who outside the tribunal recalls his sins to the penitent is gravely troublesome to him, and renders confession odious to him.²⁷

2. Having obtained such permission, the confessor can also correct or admonish others, e.g. the accomplice of the penitent, etc. Ordinarily, however, it is not expedient that he ask such permission; it will be better if he induces the penitent to open this to him outside confession; indeed, it will be better still that the penitent himself bring the matter to another who can bring a remedy to the evil.²⁸

3. In fact, permission is given when the penitent himself outside confession begins to speak about sins declared.

4. Within the confession itself, no permission is required. The reason is that it pertains to the office of the confessor to make mention of past things, whenever it is judged to profit the penitent, e.g. to reprove him concerning relapse. - And the same is licit immediately after absolution has been given, because the sacramental judgment is censured still to endure morally.²⁹

1867. Questions. Q. 1. What ought the confessor to do when he detects that the penitent is DEAF or HARD OF HEARING?

Resp. St. Alphonsus:³⁰ 1. "If he notices the deafness of the penitent around the beginning of confession, let him impose on him that he return at another time and suitable place, where the confessor can speak freely, lest others hear.

2. "But if he notices this in the progress of confession, and after several due questions the penitent does not respond rightly, then it is not licit for the confessor, in a loud voice, to impose on the penitent that he return, in such a way that those standing around would hear this; because great suspicion would be given to them that he had confessed grave matter. - And therefore, in such a case, I think the counsel is that the confessor, understanding the sins in the better mode in which he can, [impose a light penance and] absolve: absolutely indeed, if the penitent is probably censured disposed; but under condition, if there is doubt about the disposition."

Q. 2. What ought the confessor to do if he NEEDS counsel?

Resp. If danger of revelation is present, either let him propose the case in a fitting mode, e.g. as fictitious; or let him ask from the penitent permission of using sacramental knowledge; or let him have recourse to some learned counselor, to whom the person of the penitent is altogether unknown; or let him remit the penitent to another confessor, etc. - But if he can use none of these means, let him trust in God, and, with prayer and study diligently applied, let him solve the difficulty himself, in the better mode in which he can.³¹

Q. 3. In what way ought the confessor to RESPOND to INDISCREET questions?

Resp. 1. If he is questioned concerning sins heard, he can rightly affirm, even with an oath, that he has heard nothing; for concerning all things which he received in confession, he has no communicable knowledge. Thus commonly with St. Thomas, who says:³² "He can swear that he does not know what he knows only as God." And this is valid even if he should be asked to respond without equivocation.

Resp. 2. If he is questioned whether he gave absolution or not, let him respond: I have discharged my office; or better, by way of rebuke: Are such questions to be asked? - But if, absolution having been denied, he were asked by a cleric whether the penitent is going to communicate, let him respond: Ask him whether he wishes to communicate. And in like manner parents, teachers, masters, etc., are to be referred to the penitents themselves, when they inquire whether absolution has been imparted to sons or subjects.³³

Q. 4. In what way must one act with an INDISPOSED person asking for a CERTIFICATE of confession or of absolution?

Resp. 1. If he asks for a certificate of CONFESSION outside confession, it cannot be denied to him, whenever he truly instituted sacramental confession; because through such a denial it would be revealed indirectly that the penitent had not confessed rightly. But otherwise, if he had simulated confession, e.g. for avoiding punishment or infamy, for snatching a certificate; for in this case the obligation of the seal would not exist, and it would be asserted mendaciously that such a one had confessed. But it is never licit to lie.

Resp. 2. If he asks for the same certificate in the confession itself, or before he withdraws from the confessional, it must be conceded whenever he truly has confessed at least one sin, and a certificate is wont to be given, or is required by the Superiors of the penitent, e.g. before matrimony, in paschal time, in Colleges, etc. For the same reason is valid as above. - But otherwise, if he asks for it compelled by no necessity; because, in such a case, denial brings no burden, or danger of revelation.

Resp. 3. If one not absolved asks for a certificate of ABSOLUTION, the confessor cannot write it, because it would be to lie, as is clear. - "If however certificates were already printed, in which (imprudently indeed) it is asserted that absolution has been imparted, it seems probable, as some more recent authors say, that it can be handed to those confessed but not absolved, at least if they ask publicly; because then the confessor utters or writes no lie, but only performs a material act, by handing such a certificate."³⁴ This opinion, since it favors the seal, can be held in practice.