§ 4. When The Seal Is Injured

1868. The seal IS INJURED directly or indirectly: directly, if something is openly and expressly manifested which falls under the seal; indirectly, if the confessor so bears or speaks himself that others can know or suspect a sin or defect of the penitent, or of others, or any other things known through confession, from which, whether to the penitent himself or to others, shame, annoyance, dishonor, damage, or any burden whatever would come.¹ But if the sayings or deeds of the confessor after confession are held indifferently by penitents, the seal is not injured. In doubt whether danger of revelation or of offense is present, the safer part is to be held, i.e. the seal is to be preserved, as we admonished above (n. 1860).² These things having been premised, we say:

I. By WORDS the confessor indirectly violates the seal: - 1. Who addresses the penitent in so loud a voice that those standing around understand, from his responses or admonitions, what the penitent has confessed. - 2. Who says that he denied absolution to someone, or that he had not yet absolved him, or that he imposed on him a grave penance. - 3. Who, out of several penitents joined together among themselves by close relationship or kinship, as if they are brothers, greatly praises one or two, no word having been made about the others. - 4. If, in narrating some fact, he mentions such circumstances that the penitent can easily be recognized from them. - 5. Who admonishes the parents or Superiors of the penitent that they watch especially in such a place and time. - 6. Who speaks with another confessor concerning a sin which the penitent confessed to both. - 7. Who, after hearing the confessions of few persons, says that he heard such a sin, although he conceals the person; for each one suffers something of suspicion against himself from that revelation. - 8. Who says that he heard a grave sin in such a monastery, even if he does not name the person; or if he says that the Superior of the monastery does not watch sufficiently over his subjects; because such words stain the reputation of the whole Community. A fortiori, he would violate the seal who said that grave sins are committed in that Convent. - Likewise, if he said this concerning an Order of stricter observance, or concerning a Religion little spread, which namely would number fewer than three thousand members. Otherwise, if he should speak thus concerning some Religious in general, or concerning an Order much spread and notoriously relaxed, every danger of suspicion concerning some monastery in particular nevertheless being excluded.³ - 9. A preacher who, in a Community or in a village or small town, i.e. below 3000 persons, names vices in species (although public) known to him only from confessions, by saying e.g. "here blasphemy reigns; here many are thieves, onanists, etc."; or in some monastery: "here sacrileges are committed." Likewise, if, speaking concerning a town of inhabitants below 6000, he should name a sin bringing infamy, e.g. by saying: "In this place sodomy, adultery, etc., runs rampant." Otherwise, if he should speak thus concerning a larger city, or if he should rise up against sins already known to himself and to others from elsewhere.⁴

II. By DEEDS the confessor breaks the seal: 1. Who denies a certificate of confession to those asking for it outside confession; or within confession, if the certificate is required by Superiors, or is wont to be conceded to all (cf. n. 1867, q. 4). - 2. Who after confession looks at the penitent with hostile eyes, speaks with him less amicably than before, or by his manner of acting manifests that he remembers his sins, is actually thinking about them, and makes him of less account than before. - 3. Who, without another sufficient cause, shrinks from hearing a penitent whom, from a preceding confession, he knows to be troublesome, scrupulous, indisposed, etc.; yet otherwise, if the penitent were commonly known as too prolix in confessing, and at the same time of good conscience.⁵

1869. Questions. Q. 1. Whether a priest who from confession knows that snares are being prepared for him can FLEE, or in another way take precautions against DAMAGE?

Resp. In the affirmative, if from such a caution the sin confessed is by no means manifested to others, nor any burden brought upon the penitent. Otherwise, if from the circumstances it could be conjectured that the flight occurred because of notice received in confession; for flight would be an indirect revelation of the sin confessed. And although the confessor should simulate flight from some pretext, nevertheless he would always inject some reasonable suspicion of the sin confessed.⁶

Q. 2. Whether it is licit for SUPERIORS to use the notice of confession FOR EXTERNAL GOVERNMENT, if in no way it appears that they direct themselves from that notice?

Resp. Negatively, because this would evidently cede to the burden of penitents, who, if they knew that this were licit, certainly would be drawn back from confession. It is clear from the decree of Clement VIII, May 26, 1593, § 4,⁷ and the decree of the Holy Office issued by the authority of Innocent XI on November 18, 1682, by which the opposite opinion was expressly proscribed.⁸

Hence: 1. It is never licit to use the notice of confession, for removing an unworthy person from office, for denying him the suffrage of election, for denying Sacraments to a sinner, for taking keys away from a servant, etc. But the Superior can, indeed ought (as any other confessor), against an evil which becomes known to him in the forum of penance, to bring a remedy in the same forum, by obliging the penitent, if the common good requires this, to external manifestation.

2. It is not expedient to consult confessors when it is a question of someone to be promoted; for from this, as Croix well notes,⁹ many inconveniences and dangers are born. And generally Confessors ought to testify only to the frequency of the Sacraments.