Article I: Concerning the Obligation of the Sacramental Seal

St. Thomas, Supp., q. 11.

I. The sacramental seal, or seal of sacramental confession, is the most strict obligation of preserving under secrecy those things which in sacramental confession, or in order to sacramental absolution, have been declared by the penitent, and whose revelation would in some way manifest the sin and the sinner and would render the sacrament burdensome or odious. It is called a seal metaphorically from the seal by which we seal letters which we wish to be secret, and it is the obligation of concealing things heard in confession. Briefly St. Thomas says (a. 3): "the seal of confession is nothing other than the debt of concealing confession."

According to can. 889: "The sacramental seal is inviolable; wherefore let the confessor diligently beware lest by word or sign or in any other way and for any cause whatsoever he in any way betray the sinner," that is, the person and the sin. Namely, there is a most strict obligation under grave obligation of being silent outside confession concerning sins which are known by sacramental confession, unless the penitent has given permission to speak. This obligation arises from a threefold right, natural, divine, and ecclesiastical. It arises

1. from natural right: a) because between the confessor and the penitent there intervenes an implicit pact, by force of which the latter confesses his sins only under the condition of preserving secrecy perfectly; but this is a committed secret to be preserved from justice; b) moreover the natural law forbids that the reputation of another be unjustly harmed;

2. from divine right, because Christ implicitly willed the sacrament of penance to be ministered in such a way that the faithful would not be driven away from it; but for this it is necessary that confession be secret for secret sins. For he who wills the end wills the means. Therefore Christ willed those things without which confession cannot stand. But confession cannot stand without a strict seal. Therefore;

3. from ecclesiastical right, as is clear from the Fourth Lateran Council, c. 21, and from canon 889 cited above.¹

¹ The law of the seal, in the primitive Church, was not declared with the same rigor as it is now customarily done. For satisfaction was fulfilled publicly, even for occult delicts, or absolution was also given publicly; which at first sight could seem incompatible with the law of the seal. But the faithful at that time did not urge it so strictly, nor did they see its incompatibility with the publicity of penance, from the fact that publicity took place in the family and that we are all sinners, as Tertullian says. Penance at that time was a social thing, not an individual thing. Hence in the case there was no unjust defamation; otherwise even in confession itself defamation could have seemed to be present, especially because they were not yet accustomed to confess venial sins.

Moreover let it be noted that the argumentation of St. Thomas in establishing the thesis can be reduced to this: It is never licit to act against the signification of a sacrament, because this is a violation of the sacrament, and therefore sacrilege against the reverence owed to it as instituted by Christ. But by confession it is signified that sins are to be covered. Therefore by force of institution the priest is bound to conceal them. The minor is proved: Those things which are done outwardly in the sacraments are signs of those things which occur inwardly: thus confession is a sign of the interior subjection by which one is subjected to God. But God covers the sins of him who subjects himself as if they had never been. Therefore this also must be signified in the sacrament of Penance (q. 11, a. 1).

Moreover note the doctrine of St. Thomas: "That which is known under confession is as if unknown, since someone does not know it as man but as God" (a. 1, ad 1). Hence

a) "if it is commanded... that he say whether he knows something concerning such a sin, he must not say, because he must judge that the intention of the one commanding is: if he knows as man; but this he does not know as man. And, even if he were to express concerning confession, when questioned he must not say..., because he is not subject to his superior except as man; but this he does not know as man but as God" (ad 2);

b) "A man is not adduced into testimony except as man, and therefore without wound of conscience he can swear that he does not know what he knows only as God" (ad 3);

c) "But the one confessing can bring it about that the priest know also as man that which he knew as God, which he does when he gives him permission to speak; and therefore if he speaks, he does not break the seal of confession; nevertheless he must beware of scandal in speaking, lest he be judged a breaker of the seal" (a. 4);

d) "That which a man knows otherwise, whether before confession or after, he is not bound to conceal as to that which he knows as man; for he can say: I know that because I saw it. Yet he is bound to conceal it insofar as he knows it as God; for he cannot say: I heard that in confession. Nevertheless, for avoiding scandal, he must abstain from speaking about this, unless necessity is imminent" (a. 5).

II. Nature of the obligation. - The obligation of the seal is of religion and justice at once: of religion, because the reverence owed to the sacrament demands it, which otherwise would be odious to the faithful; of justice, because it protects the right of the penitent, both to reputation and especially that he not be harmed by revealing a committed secret. Hence violation of the seal always imports a twofold malice: of sacrilege on account of wounded reverence owed to the sacrament, and of injustice on account of the violated pact entered with the penitent, or also on account of harmed reputation.

The seal urges strictly, so that it admits no exception, and in no case ever can be relaxed without the certain and entirely free consent of the penitent, who can yield concerning his right, since the secret was instituted in his favor; - which consent cannot be presumed, but must be given by indubitable signs explicitly (by words) or implicitly (by deeds), nor extorted by force, deceit, importunate prayers, or reverential fear, nor afterwards revoked. Yet the consent need not be spontaneous, but can be sought by the confessor for a grave cause.

Hence no end, however good and useful, excuses violation of the seal, whether before or after the death of the penitent, without his permission: neither the good of the confessor, whether temporal (for example, to preserve life or in defense of himself) or spiritual (for example, that he himself may confess integrally), - nor the good of the penitent himself or of a third party (even for avoiding a greater damage,² for example, that one or the other be corrected or an innocent person be declared), - nor the good of the commonwealth itself³ (for example, in the case of a traitor, for guarding against the destruction of the commonwealth), - nor the good of religion (for impeding lest the sacrament of Eucharist, Order, or Matrimony be received unworthily, indeed lest heresy or schism be spread into a part of the Church). For no cause of obtaining good or avoiding evil can compensate that evil of hatred toward a sacrament altogether necessary for salvation. Indeed it concerns the spiritual good of the whole Church in preserving the frequentation of this sacrament instituted for the salvation of all, which outweighs every other good.⁴

² Thus Innocent XI, 18 Nov. 1682.

³ Clement VIII, 26 May 1593.

⁴ Therefore natural secrecy differs much from the seal, 1) because its lesion of itself is not sacrilege; 2) because of itself it admits lightness of matter; 3) because its obligation can cease in certain cases.

Hence, even in doubt whether there is danger of revelation or of breaking the seal, whether it is a doubt of law (for example, whether something falls under the seal), or of fact (for example, whether something is already known from elsewhere, or was said in order to confession), one must stand for the safer part, even if the other is more probable, because it does not concern honesty alone but the spiritual damage of the whole community, to be avoided by all means.

Yet in the case in which the confessor knows that grave damage is imminent to himself, or to a third party, or to the commonwealth or the Church, he can and must admonish the penitent that by himself or through another he impede that damage (for example, by manifesting the guilty person to the superior or by turning the accomplice away from the delict), and to one refusing to do this he can deny absolution as indisposed; but he will never be able to reveal the secret without the permission of the penitent.

III. Root of the obligation. - The obligation of the seal arises from every and only sacramental confession made for accusing oneself to the minister of the Church, as such, or also for obtaining absolution, whether complete or begun, valid or invalid; - even if absolution, for any cause whatsoever, was not granted, or the confession is sacrilegious (for example, without sorrow or purpose), or only supposed (for example, made in good faith before one who does not have power). For since the seal is in favor of the penitent, the obligation of the seal arises from the fact that on his part he placed the things necessary for sacramental confession and ordered it to absolution. Hence the seal does not arise

1. if someone knowingly confesses to a non-legitimate minister, for example, to a layman or a priest lacking jurisdiction;

2. if before a legitimate minister he institutes a simulated confession for another cause, for example, solely for deceiving or mocking the confessor, for obtaining alms or asking counsel, for extorting testimony of confession, or for seducing the confessor, without intention of receiving the sacrament;

3. if in confession he declares something not pertaining to confession, but altogether extrinsic.

In these circumstances there can exist a natural secret; but if someone communicates something to a priest under condition of the seal and the condition is accepted by him, nevertheless there is not an obligation of the seal but a promised natural secret: then namely "he is bound from the promise to conceal it in this way, as if he had it in confession, although he does not have it under the seal of confession" (q. 11, a. 2, ad 2).

IV. The subjects of the seal are all those who from sacramental confession, whether immediately or mediately, whether licitly or illicitly, have knowledge of a thing comprehended under the seal, or have heard something: of itself and first the confessor, secondarily and by participation all to whom, by chance or industry, knowledge of confession comes. For since all these have been participants of the secret of sacramental confession, they are also participants of the obligation of preserving it (cf. can. 889, § 2). And indeed:

A. Immediately they have knowledge: 1) the confessor, whether true or fictive, even a layman, the true one of himself, but the fictive accidentally;

2. the confessor who outside confession is consulted by the penitent concerning sins to be accused in a confession to be made to himself, because the confession is already begun;

3. the interpreter employed in performing confession, namely communicating in the very act of confession, or he who writes down the sins of another to be confessed, at least within confession;

4. those standing by and neighbors hearing confession whether by chance or by industry, indeed all who attempt to hear one confessing by that very fact are guilty of violation of the seal; not however those before whom the penitent, while noticing that he is heard, speaks more loudly and confesses publicly;

B. Mediately they have knowledge: 1) the superior to whom one provisionally absolved from reserved things presents himself by law, or from whom outside confession the faculty of absolving reserved things is sought;

2. the consulted theologian to whom a case of conscience is referred with permission of the penitent: for he is a participant of the secret;

3. all those who from the confessor or from others have heard, sacrilegiously, or imprudently, or legitimately, sins accused in confession, or to whom either the confessor or any other having knowledge has shown something falling under the seal; indeed

4. he who has read the written confession of another, if the writing was in fact the means of confession, for example, if he read the paper either in the act of accusation, while the penitent is actually using it, or already handed to the confessor, while it is in his hand, or lost by the confessor, or left in the confessional after absolution; likewise he who has read letters directed to the superior for the faculty concerning reserved things.

C. On the contrary, the following are not held by the seal: 1) he who reads a paper on which the penitent has described his sins by way of examination of conscience, or as a means for helping memory or for making confession more easily, which namely he used before confession or preserved afterwards: for it is mere preparation for confession and is ordered to confession only remotely and accidentally;

2. he whom the confessor consults with the permission of the penitent, but concerning a confession to be made to another, or who writes the confession outside confession;

3. the penitent himself: for the obligation of the seal is in favor of the penitent.

Yet they are held by natural secrecy, even the penitent himself, who must be silent concerning those things from which either infamy, or confusion, or damage would happen to the confessor unjustly, without a just reason.

V. The object or matter of the seal is generally all things which are known by sacramental confession and whose revelation can betray the sinner; moreover the seal can extend itself to something either directly or indirectly, of itself or accidentally:

A. Directly and of itself the seal extends itself to everything and only that which has been manifested in order to sacramental confession, namely:

1. the very sins declared, all of them, even the slightest, or only material, even thought and not fulfilled, internal and external, past or future to be perpetrated: mortal even in general, venial in such a species, or in sufficiently notable gravity or multitude; secret and even public as confessed. For St. Thomas says, q. 11, a. 5, ad 1: "The confessor can speak about thefts notorious in law already known to him from elsewhere, but he cannot say: the thief confessed to me his thefts, because in no case can he say that he heard something in confession";

2. the objects of sins, as they can be the sins of another, for example, if someone says that he spoke evil concerning a pregnant girl, concerning the theft or homicide of Titius, that he cursed a drunken son or the deflowerer of a virgin, that he hated his mother on account of adultery, despised his father on account of stinginess;

3. circumstances, as such, even declared after absolution, which are or are judged necessary or useful for the manifestation of sin, for example, frequenting the theater, reading depraved books, boasting of nobility, the quantity of theft: thus occasions, temptations, ends of sin;

4. accomplices of sin who, legitimately or imprudently, are in some way manifested, for example, I committed theft with my brother. Hence the confessor cannot betray the accomplice without the permission of the penitent.

B. Indirectly but of itself there fall under the seal: all things which of themselves can lead to knowledge of sin, as declared by the penitent, or of the sinner, namely:

1. a disgraceful denial of absolution, such as is not from defect of matter or because there is a custom of not absolving at once;

2. the indisposition of the penitent;

3. the satisfaction imposed, unless it is very slight, because it is an occasion of suspecting the penitent to be guilty of mortal sins or of many venial sins;

4. counsel sought or given, if it has connection with confession, for example, for correcting a defect.

C. Other things of themselves in no way fall under the seal; yet sometimes they can fall accidentally. Thus:

1. sins committed in confession, for example, of impatience, insult against the confessor;

2. sins of the penitent or of others as known from elsewhere; unless nevertheless things less certain have been confirmed from confession, or less accurate things have been completely declared;

3. the confession itself and the conferral of absolution;

4. virtues, charisms, and gifts of God, or good works;

5. mere natural or moral defects whether of body or soul.

Yet these can be the object of natural secrecy, as if by approaching secretly the penitent by word or deed signified that he did not wish it to be known that he had confessed; - indeed accidentally they can be matter of the seal, either directly: if they were declared as circumstances of sins (for example, of abuse or ingratitude), or indirectly if from adjuncts they can suggest suspicion concerning the sins or state of the penitent, or concerning the state of others. Thus if someone is revealed to have confessed who had approached secretly, or to an extraordinary confessor (for example, a religious), or to one who enjoys a special faculty, for example, of absolving from reserved things, or one who is not accustomed to confess much and approached on a day on which there is no custom, because there is suspicion of a graver sin, or at least of a non-ordinary one; likewise if someone is said to have confessed only slight things, if he has graver things to accuse, namely on account of suspicion of sacrilege or keeping back; likewise if one or another is praised and put forward as absolved, while nothing is said about others: for then concerning others suspicion easily arises.

VI. One violation of the seal is direct or immediate, another indirect or mediate. Direct violation is done by expressly revealing that which is matter of the seal and at the same time sufficiently designating the person who did it. Yet for this it is not necessary either a) that the person be known to the hearers, provided that he is sufficiently determined or designated, or b) that the hearers know that the priest is speaking about things heard in confession; but it suffices that in reality he speaks thus. Thus, for example: Titius confessed mortal sins, or committed homicide - Peter was not absolved - the prefect of such a city committed adultery - the first whom I heard today confessed adultery, if the hearers can know him. This is a mortal sin from its whole genus, which admits no lightness of matter: for the direct manifestation even of venial sins is very odious to penitents and would drive them away from the sacrament; therefore by direct injury of the seal in light matter, grave injury is done to the sacrament.

Indirect violation is done by saying or doing or omitting something from which others can know or suspect that which is the object of the seal, with probable danger of making known or suspected the person who did it. It is not so much a formal violation of the seal as danger of violation, namely, of knowing at once the sin and the sinner. For this it is not required that the hearers know the person or suspect, but that suspicion can prudently be made. This is a mortal sin from its own genus, which nevertheless sometimes admits lightness of matter, namely, when the danger of knowing the matter of the seal and rendering the sacrament odious is slight and very remote.

VII. The indirect modes of violating the seal, whether by words or by deeds, are various according to the various adjuncts. We report some of them from approved authors.

A. By words: 1) If the confessor, in narrating some fact from confession, mentions such circumstances that the penitent can easily be known from them. The example is most known of the pastor who, after twenty-five years of priesthood, narrates in company that the first penitent confessed adultery to him; a little later a man enters and narrates to all the hearers: I was your first penitent.

2. If, after hearing the confessions of a few, he says that he heard such a grave sin, although he conceals the person, provided that the penitents can be known by those to whom the sin is narrated: for each one from that revelation suffers some suspicion against himself.

3. If, from those things which he knew only by confession, he says concerning a community (college, convent, village, town, region, religious order) a relatively graver sin, or relatively many more, or altogether special vices, besides those which are known to be committed there, even with every danger of suspicion concerning determinate persons in particular excluded: for suspicion nevertheless is concerning individuals, or at least lower estimation or infamy and disgrace redounds upon the whole community, and therefore upon the penitents insofar as they are members of the community; and the detriment is the graver because the matter is confirmed by the authentic testimony of the confessor.

Therefore he who says that in such a convent he heard a grave sin, or that in such a religious order grave sins are committed, which he knows from confession alone; and he who asserts that in a small place (of about 3,000 persons, or fewer) an occult vice dominates, or venereal disease, or such grave crimes are perpetrated, which he knows from confession, for example, many sacrileges or thefts; and he who concerning a somewhat larger place narrates an infamous sin or enormous crime, such as incest or sodomy; - not however if he narrated grave things only concerning religious in general, or concerning an order, if it were more numerous and notoriously relaxed, or even said greater things concerning great cities, in which such things are also committed.

4. If he addresses or rebukes a penitent with so loud a voice that those standing by understand from his responses, or from the admonitions, what the penitent has confessed, or that he has sinned gravely.

5. If not from the very beginning, but in the progress of confession, he says to a deaf penitent in a loud voice: come back, or something similar.

6. If he says that someone confessed to him as an extraordinary confessor or as one endowed with greater faculties, or approached him secretly, or that he denied absolution to such a one, or (unless the custom somewhere were general) had not yet absolved him, or only after a trial, or had sent him away for a time, or had not yet received his completed confession, or had imposed a grave penance on him; for from this it is inferred that a grave crime was present.

7. If, by comparing several penitents, either explicitly or implicitly (as brothers or fellow-students), he praises one or two, for example, concerning purity of conscience or concerning the fact that he brings only venial sins, but says nothing concerning the others: for then rather often he will suggest suspicion of some matter of moment, or mortal sin, or indisposition.

8. If he admonishes parents or superiors of the penitent that they watch especially in those circumstances, for example, in such a place or time.

9. If he speaks with another confessor concerning a sin which the penitent confessed to each.

B. By deeds: 1) If the confessor sitting in the confessional rises and, in a mode which those standing by can observe, reads the list of reserved cases.

2. If by visible gesture, groan, or exclamation he manifests wonder or sadness.

3. If, after hearing confession, he immediately departs from the church, not at all solicitous concerning the communion of the penitent, which otherwise would be likely.

4. If he denies a certificate of confession to a penitent who asks before others, or in circumstances in which it is customarily granted to all; concerning which see in the following article.

5. If, after hearing confession, he changes his mode of acting toward the penitent, where this is perceived by others who from it could suspect that some determinate or graver sin had been declared; concerning which again in the following article.

VIII. Observations. - 1. In ecclesiastical law, according to can. 1757, § 3, as incapable of bearing testimony are repelled: "priests, as regards all those things which have become known to them from sacramental confession, even if they have been loosed from the bond of the seal; indeed things heard by anyone and in any way on the occasion of confession cannot be received even as an indication of truth."

2. According to can. 2369: a) A confessor who has presumed directly to violate the sacramental seal incurs by that very fact an excommunication reserved in a most special manner to the Apostolic See.

b) But he who has violated the seal only indirectly is liable to penalties ferendae sententiae, the same as confessors soliciting to shameful things (can. 2368, § 1), namely suspension, or even inability to receive confessions, deprivation of benefices, dignities, and active and passive voice, indeed, in the graver case, degradation.

c) Rash, and therefore conscious, violation of the seal by an interpreter or by all others to whom knowledge of confession has in any way come, is established to be punished, according to the gravity of the guilt, by a salutary penalty (ferendae sententiae), which can even be excommunication.

3. Lest the seal be broken indirectly, it is always better to answer in the same way. Thus, when questioned concerning sins, let him say that he has heard or knows nothing; - when questioned concerning absolution given, let him say: I have performed my office, or: should such questions be asked?; - when questioned concerning Communion to be ministered (for example, in a hospital), let him say: ask the penitent whether he wishes to communicate.