Article II: Concerning the Obligation of Not Using Knowledge Acquired in Confession

I. From the properly so-called violation of the seal there differs the exterior use of any knowledge had from confession, which can also be present without anything being revealed, while violation properly so called is always done with some direct or indirect revelation of those things which fall under the seal. This use, without permission of the penitent, is generally illicit, because of itself or accidentally it could generate confusion, shame, evil suspicion, or some harm, disgrace, annoyance, damage, or any burden whatever to the penitent or to another (Clement VIII, 26 May 1593; Innocent XI, 18 Nov. 1682); not only

a) if there is danger of direct or indirect revelation;

but also b) if from it there follows a moral or material burden of the penitent or of another, and therefore hatred of the sacrament, which is also true if from non-use a much graver damage of the penitent would follow (Innocent XI, 18 Nov. 1682); and

c) if suspicion of the violated seal arises, and therefore scandal.

But in other cases the confessor can use this knowledge of his, because it is not properly a breaking of the seal nor of itself repugnant to the seal.

Hence can. 890: "1. The use of knowledge acquired from confession with burden to the penitent is altogether prohibited to the confessor, even with every danger of revelation excluded.

"2. Both superiors existing for the time being, and confessors who afterwards have been announced as superiors, can in no way use, for exterior governance, knowledge which they have had concerning sins in confession."

Moreover the aforesaid illegitimate use is a mortal sin from its own genus, because from its nature it is born to cause great burden and grave scandal, and thus to render the sacrament very odious; nevertheless it admits lightness of matter, for example, if the burden arising from it is very moderate.

II. From this the following rules are easily established concerning the use of knowledge drawn from confession:

A. As regards the penitent himself as such:

1. It is illicit outside confession to address the penitent concerning things known from confession, unless with his permission: this causes shame and renders the sacrament odious.

2. On the contrary it is licit, a) if the penitent speaks first, because he implicitly gives permission,

b) immediately after absolution, because the judgment is morally continued,

c) in following confessions, where the priest is the minister of God, if it is in some way useful to the penitent or expedient for the rectitude of the present confession: for the past state has some relation to the rectitude of the present judgment.

3. It is illicit to reveal sins committed in confession (even not accused), natural or moral defects, of body or soul, manifested from confession alone, indeed gifts known from confession alone, if it is with burden to the penitent: for example, that he is illegitimate, a eunuch, falsely noble, of the race of Jews or magicians, poor, burdened by debts, ignorant, incapable, less skilled in an art, rude, dull, scrupulous in a case in which this does not fall to the praise of the penitent; - on the contrary it is licit, if it is known also outside confession, for example, that he is stammering, lame, deaf, or is of such condition.

B. As regards exterior governance:

1. Superiors cannot use knowledge acquired in confession, even if it does not appear that they direct themselves from such knowledge, and even if the penitent does not notice this: it is to the burden of penitents, if they knew that this is licit.

Thus they cannot use knowledge to remove an unworthy man from office, to deny him a vote of election, to deny sacraments to a sinner, or assistance at marriage on account of an impediment, to take away keys from him, to eject a pregnant maidservant or one committing thefts, to denounce or institute an inquiry.

2. Likewise the confessor himself cannot look upon the penitent with hostile eyes, address him less amicably than before, manifest by his manner of acting that he remembers the sins, make less of him than before, correct him, address him harshly, show him a severe countenance.

Indeed neither may he therefore refuse to hear the one confessing because from the preceding confession he knew him to be troublesome, scrupulous, entangled in conscience, or tenuously disposed, unless he has an external cause distinct from confession, for example, if the penitent were commonly known to be too prolix in confessing, or he did it on account of another motive. Yet the confessor can dismiss him at the beginning of confession, if he is not disposed or seeks irrationally; likewise he can admonish him in confession not to call upon him thereafter.

3. Hence the confessor is not to be questioned by parents, teachers, etc., concerning the morals of their penitents; nor consulted where it concerns admission to religion or promotion to Orders, but let him testify only to the frequency of the sacraments.

C. As regards morals exclusively his own:

1. The confessor can, on account of knowledge of confession, reform his own morals, better perform his office, pray before God for the penitent, or act more kindly toward him, consult books or wise men, temper rigor, direct himself in interrogations, guard himself from danger and occasions of spiritual or temporal damage such as death, plots, or poison, watch his flock more diligently, instruct others or admonish in general that they beware for themselves, indeed abstain from the celebration of Mass in a violated church or with poisoned wine, provided that he gives no notion to others of the sin accused or of its accusation, nor inflict burden on the penitent, for example, because others know not from this but from elsewhere, or the priest abstains or departs under another pretext. Yet in doubt let permission of the penitent be sought.

Thus, even if the penitent or others perhaps notice that it arises from knowledge of confession. "The reason is," says Haine, o. c., q. 117, "because thence the penitent suffers no shame or inconvenience, nor would men reasonably be drawn back from confession on account of this, nor finally is the action or omission of the confessor a revelation of the seal, since it is supposed to be so indifferent that others ignorant from elsewhere cannot thence come into knowledge of confessed sins. Hence if they do come into knowledge, this rather arises from the previous knowledge which they have, than from the action or omission of the confessor."

In truth, the case which would present difficulty is rather metaphysical, says Lugo, de Poen., disp. 23, n. 110, since a means of escaping these dangers will never be lacking, either by the permission of the penitent or from some pretext.

2. Preachers can speak about those things of which they would not have thought unless they had received confession; not however concerning the particular sins of penitents in small communities.

III. Observations. - 1. Concerning the certificate of confession to be given or denied, let it be noted: a) such a certificate can always be given to all those who truly intend sacramental confession, whether absolved or not absolved; - b) the certificate cannot be denied to an indisposed penitent who truly confessed, if he asks for it outside confession; because thus the confessor would use knowledge of confession with burden to the penitent; - c) likewise it cannot be denied to a penitent asking for it in confession, provided that the penitent is placed in circumstances in which it is customarily given, because it would indirectly be a violation of the seal, since it would be revealed that the penitent was not duly confessed; - d) it must always be denied to those who simulate confession, even if this happens for obtaining the certificate: for then no obligation of the seal is present, indeed by giving the certificate the confessor would mendaciously say that the penitent was confessed; yet on account of grave inconveniences he could say that such a one approached him or that he heard him in the confessional; - e) testimony of absolution granted cannot be written for him who was not absolved, because it would be to lie; yet if a printed certificate imprudently showed testimony of absolution, it would have to be handed over even to him who was not absolved, at least if generally it is customarily handed over, or he himself publicly asks: thus on account of the seal; nor would the confessor lie, but he would place only the material act of handing over (or signing) the certificate on account of a proportionately grave reason, in circumstances which sufficiently indicate the restriction.

2. Concerning seeking counsel. - If the confessor needs counsel in a difficult case: a) he can recur to a theologian to whom the penitent is altogether unknown; - b) if this cannot be done, let him propose the case in such a way that the danger of revelation is avoided, that is, as fictive, by omitting adjuncts not necessary, from which the penitent could be known, and by mixing false things which do not change the substance of the matter; - c) or, if it is not conveniently done thus, let him ask from the penitent permission of taking counsel and speaking with another concerning a matter pertaining to confession; - d) but if this is denied, and in no way can he avoid danger of revelation, let him send him to another confessor, or if this can be done only with difficulty, study and prayer having been diligently employed, let him trust in God and solve the difficulty himself in the best way he can.

3. Concerning conversation about things heard in confession. - Lest confessors easily be exposed to danger of illicitly using knowledge of confession, and be held breakers of the seal, from greater prudence the Holy Office established generally that they should not converse among themselves about things confessed as such or make public discourse. Thus in the instruction of 9 June 1915, which nevertheless is not proved to have the character of a strict law, since in no way is it referred to in the Acta S. Sedis, nor in the annotations of the Code, nor in the Sources of the Code of Law. But at least it contains a most grave admonition.