Article III: On the Duties after the Act of Confession

St. Th., Suppl., q. 11.

620. After the act of confession there are three offices or obligations of the minister: a) per se:

1. of preserving the sacramental seal,

2. of not using, to the burden of the penitent, knowledge received in confession,1 - b) per accidens:

3. of supplying defects and correcting errors.

621. The first obligation is the sacramental seal. - The seal of sacramental confession is the strictest obligation of keeping under secrecy those things which in sacramental confession, or in order to sacramental absolution, have been declared by the penitent, and the revelation of which would in some way manifest the sin and the sinner, and thus 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, a. 3: "the seal of confession is nothing other than the debt of concealing confession."

Now, according to can. 889: "the sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore let the confessor diligently beware lest by word or sign or in any other way and for any cause he in any degree betray the sinner," i.e., the person and the sin. Namely, there is the strictest grave obligation of keeping silent outside confession about sins which have been known by sacramental confession, unless the penitent has given permission to speak. This obligation arises from a threefold right: natural, divine, and ecclesiastical.

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

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 deterred 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 Lateran Council IV, c. 21, and from can. 889 already cited.

Let it be noted: 1) 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 a sacrilege against the reverence owed to it as instituted by Christ. But through confession it is signified that sins are to be covered. Therefore by force of the institution the priest is bound to conceal them. Proof of the minor: Those things which are done exteriorly in the sacraments are signs of those things which happen interiorly: thus confession is a sign of the interior subjection by which someone is subjected to God. But God covers the sins of him who subjects himself, as if they had never been. Therefore also this must be signified in the sacrament of Penance (a. 1).

2. Moreover the doctrine of St. Thomas: "That which is known under confession is as though unknown, since one does not know it as man but as God" (ad 1); hence:

a) "If it is commanded... that he say whether he knows anything about such a sin, he ought not to say it, because he ought to judge that the intention of the one commanding is, if he knows it as man; but this he does not know as man. And even if he should express that he asks about confession, the one questioned ought not to say it..., 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 brought in as witness except as man, and therefore without injury to 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 knows also as man that which he knew only 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 regarded as 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. Nevertheless he is bound to conceal it insofar as he knows it as God; for he cannot say: I heard this in confession. Yet to avoid scandal, he ought to abstain from speaking about this, unless necessity is imminent" (a. 5).

622. The nature of the obligation of the seal. - The obligation of the seal is of religion and of justice at the same time: 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 lest he be injured by revealing a committed secret. Hence violation of the seal always imports a twofold malice: of injustice because of the pact entered into with the penitent which has been violated, or also because of the reputation which has been injured; and of sacrilege because of the reverence owed to the sacrament which has been injured. Namely, confession is performed in such a way that this knowledge is exclusively sacramental, since it is made to the priest not as to a man but as to the minister of God, pertaining only to the forum of God and of conscience, and ordered uniquely to the sacrament. Therefore every direct injury to it is sacrilegious, as a direct usurpation of a sacred thing and a profanation.

The seal urges strictly, so that it admits no exception and in no case ever can be relaxed without the certain and wholly free consent of the penitent, who can yield from his own right, since the secret was instituted in his favor; but consent cannot be presumed, but must be given by indubitable signs, explicitly (by words) or implicitly (by deeds), nor must it have been extorted by force, deceit, importunate prayers, or reverential fear, nor afterward revoked.

Hence no end, however good and useful, excuses violation of the seal, whether before or after the death of the penitent, without his permission:

a) neither the good of the confessor, whether temporal, e.g., to preserve life or in self-defense, or spiritual, e.g., that he himself may confess integrally;

b) nor the good of the penitent himself or of a third party, even for avoiding a greater harm,1 e.g., that either one may be corrected or that an innocent person may be declared innocent;

c) nor the good of the republic itself,2 e.g., in the case of a traitor, for preventing the destruction of the republic;

d) nor the good of religion, for preventing that the sacrament of the Eucharist, of Order, or of Matrimony be received unworthily, indeed lest heresy or schism be spread into a part of the Church.

For no cause of attaining good or of avoiding evil can compensate for that evil of hatred toward the sacrament which is altogether necessary for salvation. For it is a question of the spiritual good of the whole Church in preserving the frequenting of this sacrament instituted for the salvation of all, which outweighs every other good.1 Hence also in doubt whether there is present danger of revelation or of breaking the seal, whether it is a doubt of law (e.g., whether something falls under the seal) or of fact (e.g., whether something is already known from elsewhere or was said in order to confession), one must stand for the safer side, because it is not a question of mere uprightness but of spiritual harm to the whole community, to be avoided by all means (II, n. 90-91).

Yet in the case in which the confessor knows that grave harm threatens himself or a third party, or the republic or the Church, he can and must admonish the penitent that through himself or through another he prevent that harm (e.g., by manifesting the guilty person to a superior), and if he refuses to do this, he can deny absolution as to one indisposed; but he will never be able to reveal the secret without the permission of the penitent.

623. The root of the obligation of the seal. - 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 whatever cause, has not been granted, or the confession is sacrilegious (e.g., without sorrow or purpose), or only thought to be sacramental (e.g., 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 if he on his part has placed those things necessary for sacramental confession and has ordered it to absolution.

Hence the seal does not arise:

1. If someone knowingly confesses to a non-legitimate minister, e.g., to a layman or to a priest lacking jurisdiction.

2. If before a legitimate minister he makes a simulated confession for another cause, e.g., solely for deceiving or mocking the confessor, for obtaining alms, or for seeking counsel, or for seducing the confessor, without the intention of receiving the sacrament.

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

624. The subject of the seal. - They are all those who from sacramental confession, whether immediately or mediately, whether licitly or illicitly, have knowledge of a matter comprehended under the seal or have heard something: per se and first the confessor, secondarily and by participation all those to whom, by accident or by design, knowledge of confession has come. For since all these have been sharers in the secret of sacramental confession, they are also sharers in the obligation of preserving it (can. 889, § 2).

In particular, A. those have immediate knowledge:

1. the confessor, whether true or fictitious, even a layman; the true one per se, the fictitious one per accidens;

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

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

4. bystanders and neighbors hearing the confession, whether by accident or by design; indeed all who attempt to hear the one confessing, by that very fact, are guilty of violation of the seal; not, however, those in whose presence the penitent, noticing that he is heard, speaks more loudly and confesses publicly.

B. Those have mediate knowledge:

1. the superior before whom, by law, one provisionally absolved from reserved sins presents himself, or from whom, outside confession, the faculty of absolving reserved sins is sought;

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

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

4. indeed one who has read the written confession of another, if the writing was in fact the medium of confession, e.g., if he has read the paper either in the act of accusation, while the penitent actually uses it, or after it has already been handed to the confessor, while it is in his hand, or after it was lost by the confessor, or after absolution left in the confessional; likewise one who has read letters directed to the superior for the faculty from reserved sins.

C. On the contrary, these are not bound by the seal:

1. one who reads a paper on which the penitent has described his sins by way of examination of conscience, or of a means for assisting the memory, or for more easily making confession, which, namely, he used before confession or preserved afterward: for it is mere preparation for confession and is ordered to confession only remotely and per accidens;

2. the one whom the confessor consults with the permission of the penitent, but concerning a confession to be made to another, or one 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 bound by natural secrecy, even the penitent himself, who ought to keep silent about those things from which either infamy, or confusion, or harm would arise unjustly and without just reason for the confessor.

625. The object or matter of the seal. - Under the seal fall generally all things which are known by sacramental confession and the revelation of which can betray the sinner; moreover the seal can extend itself to something either directly or indirectly, per se or per accidens.

A. Directly and per se the seal extends itself to all and only that which is manifested in order to sacramental confession.

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

2. the objects of sins, as the sins of others can be, e.g., if someone says that he spoke evil about a pregnant girl, about the theft or homicide of Titius, that he cursed a drunken son or the deflowerer of a virgin, that he hated his mother because of adultery, or despised his father because of stinginess;

3. circumstances, as such, even declared after absolution, which are or are thought necessary or useful for the manifestation of the sin, e.g., frequenting the theater, reading evil books, boasting of nobility, the quantity of theft: thus occasions, temptations, the end of the one sinning;

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

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

Thus 1) a disgraceful denial of absolution, such as is not from defect of matter or because the custom is not to absolve at once;

2. the indisposition of the penitent;

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

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

C. Other things in no way fall per se under the seal, although sometimes they can fall under it per accidens.

Thus: 1) sins committed in confession, e.g., of impatience, insult, or theft toward the confessor;

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

3. the confession itself and the conferring of absolution;

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

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

Yet these can be the object of natural secrecy, as if by approaching secretly the penitent has signified by word or deed that he does not wish it to be known that he has confessed; - indeed per accidens they can be matter of the seal, either directly, if they were declared as circumstances of sins (e.g., of abuse or of ingratitude), or indirectly if from the adjuncts they can introduce a suspicion about the sins or state of the penitent, or about the state of others. Thus it can happen if someone is revealed to have confessed who had approached secretly, or to an extraordinary confessor (e.g., a religious), or to one who enjoys a special faculty, e.g., of absolving from reserved sins, or if one who is not accustomed to confess much has approached on a day on which it is not customary, because there is a suspicion of a graver or at least not ordinary sin; likewise if it is said that someone confessed only light things, when he has graver things to be accused, because of the suspicion, namely, of sacrilege or reticence; likewise if one or another is praised and brought forward as absolved, while nothing is said about others: for then suspicion easily arises about the others.

626. Violation of the seal is one kind direct or immediate, another indirect or mediate.

1. Direct violation is done by expressly revealing that which is the matter of the seal and at the same time sufficiently designating the person who did it.

For this, however, it is not necessary, either a) that the person be known to the hearers, provided 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, e.g., Titius confessed mortal sins, or committed homicide, - Peter has not been 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 deter them from the sacrament; therefore by direct injury of the seal in light matter, grave injury is done to the sacrament.

2. 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 introducing knowledge or suspicion of the person who did it.

It is not so much a formal violation of the seal as the danger of violation, namely, of knowing together the sin and the sinner. For this a merely possible suspicion does not suffice, but at least a probable one; nevertheless it is not required that the hearers know or suspect the person, but that suspicion can prudently arise. This is a mortal sin from its genus, which nevertheless sometimes admits lightness of matter, namely, when the danger of knowing the matter of the seal and of rendering the sacrament odious is slight and very remote.

627. Indirect ways of violating the seal. - They are various, whether consisting in words or in deeds, and according to various adjuncts; some of these we report from approved authors.

A. In words: 1) If the confessor, in narrating some fact from confession, mentions such circumstances that the penitent can easily be recognized from them. Very well known is the example of a pastor who, after 25 years of priesthood, narrates in company that the first penitent who confessed to him confessed adultery; a little afterward a man enters and narrates while all are hearing: I was your first penitent.

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

3. If, from those things which he knew by confession alone, he says about a community (college, convent, village, town, region, religious order) a relatively graver sin, or relatively many more sins, or altogether special vices, beyond those things which are known to be committed there, even with every danger of suspicion about determinate persons in particular excluded: for nevertheless there is suspicion about the individuals, or at least less esteem or infamy and disgrace redounds to the whole community, and therefore to 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.

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

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

5. If not from the first beginning but in the progress of confession, he says with a loud voice to a somewhat deaf penitent: return, or something similar.

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

7. If, in comparing several penitents, either explicitly or implicitly (as brothers or fellow-students), he praises one or two, e.g., concerning purity of conscience or because he brings only venial sins, but says nothing about the others: for then more often he will introduce suspicion of some matter of importance, or of mortal sin, or of indisposition.

8. If he admonishes the parents or superiors of the penitent that they should watch especially in these circumstances, e.g., in such a place or at such a time.

9. If he speaks with another confessor about a sin which the penitent confessed to both.

B. In deeds: 1) If the confessor, sitting in the confessional, rises and in a manner which bystanders can observe reads the table of reserved cases.

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

3. If, after the confession has been heard, he immediately leaves the church, taking no care about the communion of the penitent, which otherwise would be likely.

4. If he denies a testimony of confession to a penitent who asks in the presence of others, or in circumstances in which it is customarily granted to all; concerning this see below, n. 630, 4.

5. If, after the confession has been heard, he changes his manner of acting toward the penitent, where this is perceived by others who from this can suspect that some determinate or graver sin has been declared; concerning this more is now to be said.

628. The second obligation is not to use exteriorly any knowledge acquired in confession. - The exterior use of any knowledge had from confession differs from a violation of the seal properly so called; this use can also be present without anything being revealed, while a violation properly so called of the seal always occurs with some direct or indirect revelation of those things which fall under the seal. This use, without the permission of the penitent, is generally illicit, as Clement VIII, May 26, 1593, and Innocent XI, November 18, 1682, declared, insofar as per se or per accidens it could generate confusion, shame, bad suspicion, or some injury, dishonor, annoyance, harm, or any burden whatever for the penitent or another; not only

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

b) but also if from this there follows a burden for the penitent or for another, and therefore hatred of the sacrament, which is also true if from non-use a much graver harm to the penitent would follow, as Innocent XI declared;

c) or if a suspicion of a 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 per se repugnant to the seal.

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

"§ 2. Both superiors existing for the time being, and confessors who afterward shall have been appointed superiors, can in no way use, for exterior governance, the knowledge which they have had about sins in confession."

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

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

A. As to the penitent himself as such:

1. It is illicit outside confession to address the penitent about things known from confession, without 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 minister of God, if in some way it is 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 this is with burden to the penitent: e.g., that he is illegitimate, a eunuch, falsely noble, of the race of Jews or Magi, poor, burdened with debts, ignorant, incapable, less experienced in an art, uncultivated, 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, e.g., that he is stammering, lame, deaf, or is of such a condition.

B. As to 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 though the penitent does not notice it: it is a burden to penitents, if they should know that this is licit. Thus they cannot use the knowledge for removing an unworthy person from office, for denying him a vote in an election, for denying sacraments to a sinner, or assistance at marriage because of an impediment, for taking away keys from him, for dismissing a maidservant who is pregnant or committing thefts, for denouncing him or instituting 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, value him less than before, reprove him, address him harshly, or show him a severe countenance; - indeed he cannot even for this reason refuse to hear the one confessing, because from the preceding confession he knew him to be troublesome, scrupulous, entangled in conscience, or slightly disposed, unless he has an external cause distinct from confession, as if it were commonly known that the penitent is too prolix in confessing, or if he did this for another motive.1

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

C. As to his own exclusively proper conduct:

1. The confessor, because of knowledge from confession, can reform his own conduct, fulfill his office better, pray for the penitent before God, or act more kindly toward him, consult books or wise men, temper rigor, guide himself in questions, take precautions for himself against danger and occasions of spiritual or temporal harm, such as death, plots, or poison, watch more diligently over the flock, instruct others or admonish them in general that they take care for themselves, etc., indeed abstain from the celebration of Mass in a violated church or with poisoned wine, provided he does not introduce to others any notion of the sin accused or of its accusation, nor burden to the penitent, e.g., because others know not from this but from elsewhere, or because the priest abstains or withdraws under another pretext; in doubt, however, let the permission of the penitent be sought.

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

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

2. Preachers can speak about those things of which they would not have thought unless they had heard confessions; not, however, about particular sins of penitents in small communities.

1. One thing is the seal or secret to be kept; another is the obligation not to use knowledge acquired in confession even without injury to the secret. This last is called by some, not very accurately, the accidental seal; indeed many treat of both together promiscuously and without distinction. Yet they must be distinguished: namely, the seal obliges much more strictly than the other; besides, the obligation of the seal is special, of which St. Thomas expressly treats; the other obligation is the general one of not causing burden, which must be declared according to common principles, concerning which nothing special occurs in St. Thomas.

1. Thus Innocent XI, November 18, 1682.

2. Thus Clement VIII, May 26, 1593.

1. Therefore the natural secret differs much from the sacramental seal, 1) because injury to the former is not per se sacrilege; 2) because per se it admits lightness of matter; 3) because its obligation ceases in certain cases.

1. Nevertheless the confessor can dismiss him at the beginning of confession, if he is not disposed or asks unreasonably; likewise he can in confession admonish him not to summon him henceforth.

629. The third obligation is to supply defects and to correct errors. - A threefold defect or error can occur: 1) either the error vitiates the very value of the sacrament, e.g., forgetfulness of absolution, an invalid form, indisposition of the penitent, lack of jurisdiction; - 2) or the error offends the mere integrity of confession or of the sacrament, e.g., a due question omitted concerning the species or number of sins, satisfaction not enjoined; - 3) or the error regards the obligations of the penitent and brings harm to the penitent or to a third party, e.g., a proximate occasion which is not removed, undue restitution imposed, due restitution not imposed.

A. An error invalidating the sacrament and gravely harmful to the penitent, of itself and regularly, must be corrected, and indeed under grave obligation and from justice; - indeed even with grave inconvenience, if it was committed from grave fault of the confessor (II, n. 296, A). For the confessor, from a quasi-contract with the penitent and therefore from justice, is bound to impart absolution to one rightly disposed: from charity indeed he hears the confession, but once it has been heard, he is already obliged from justice to provide the other necessary things (n. 614). Therefore if he erred as to the value of the sacrament, he is bound from justice to correct it, if he can; and if he erred from grave fault, even with great inconvenience; - otherwise without grave inconvenience, unless, however, the penitent were in grave danger of dying in the state of sin, as if he were in the article of death or in probable danger of not confessing any more, in which case the confessor would be obliged even with grave inconvenience, but from charity.

Therefore justice does not always oblige in an equal manner, but justice injured from fault obliges more strictly than justice injured without fault, as appears in the case of one detaining the thing of another in good or bad faith as to restitution. Hence the gravity of the obligation, as also of the inconvenience to be undergone, must be measured both from the gravity of the harm and from the gravity of culpability or negligence.

The principle supposes 1) that the error is still gravely harmful to the penitent; for if the harm is light, e.g., because the penitent had not accused mortal sins, or if the harm does not persevere, because the penitent approached another confessor by whom he was validly absolved, or because in another way he was certainly justified (namely, by Extreme Unction or perfect contrition), the obligation no longer urges;

2. that the error comes from the part of the confessor; for if the error comes from the fault of the penitent, because, e.g., he was knowingly indisposed, the confessor is indeed bound to repair the harm as a cooperator, but not so strictly - except in the case of extreme necessity - because the penitent could provide for himself otherwise, by making a new confession.

The apt manner of repairing the defect is different:

1. If because of defect of jurisdiction the sacrament is invalid, let the confessor induce the penitent to confess again, and, if this is necessary for that, let him admonish him about the invalidity of the absolution, even without permission to speak about the confession having been obtained beforehand from the penitent: for since the reason of nullity is exclusively on the part of the confessor, not from a defect of the penitent, there is no use there of things heard in confession.

2. If because of omission or defect of absolution, and a) this is detected immediately or shortly after confession and the penitent is still morally present, he can be absolved again, even without previous admonition, provided it is clear that he is duly disposed; b) and if he is too far away, let him be recalled to the sacred tribunal, so long as this can be done without inconvenience; otherwise let the confessor himself approach the penitent and absolve him; c) but if the error was not repaired immediately or after a short time, let the confessor induce the penitent to confess again; let him exhort him to grieve not only for those things accused in the present confession, but also for past things, especially those accused in the last confession; and let him duly absolve him.

3. If because of the indisposition of the penitent, let the confessor approach the penitent and induce him to confess again, as was said; but if this cannot effectively be done, after the confessor has first obtained the permission of the penitent to speak with him about a matter pertaining to confession, let him admonish him about the invalidity, so that the error can be repaired.

B. In the case of an error touching only the integrity of the sacrament:

1. If the confessor negatively impeded integrity by omission (whether from forgetfulness or from culpable negligence), he is not bound to repair the harm or to admonish the penitent outside confession, because the obligation of procuring integrity affects the confessor as minister of the sacrament, i.e., within confession, and on the other hand an admonition outside confession of itself and generally is troublesome to the penitent; - yet in another confession, where the confessor is spiritual physician and minister of the sacrament, the error must be corrected if it can be done without great inconvenience.

2. If he positively impeded integrity, the confessor is bound to admonish even outside confession, after the permission of the penitent has first been obtained; provided he can do this without scandal and grave inconvenience, and more strictly if he erred culpably than if inculpably.

The reason is that each one is bound to repair the harm which he has positively inflicted, and to remove the cause of it which he placed; namely, he is bound lest from his positive action others incur harm, even from material sin. Nevertheless not with grave inconvenience, because if grave harm excuses the penitent from preserving integrity, a fortiori it excuses the confessor from procuring it; hence a somewhat lesser cause will excuse one erring inculpably. And in fact the confessor is rarely bound to correct.

C. In the case of an error which brings harm to the penitent or to a third party, a similar principle holds as in the preceding case:

1. If he has erred negatively by omission, from office the confessor is bound toward the penitent, even outside confession, to admonish and correct, if from that omission the penitent is moved to believe licit and to do what is illicit or to the harm of a third party; more strictly or less strictly, with greater or lesser inconvenience, according to the gravity of the harm and culpability. But he is not bound from justice to repair the harm of the third party, because the confessor is not bound from office to procure the good of the third party.

2. But if he has positively led the penitent into error, e.g., if the confessor, when asked, pronounced that restitution must be made where no obligation of making restitution existed, or conversely; and

a) the error was culpable (e.g., from malice, vincible ignorance, grave negligence), the confessor is bound from justice, even outside confession, and in grave matter under grave obligation, to repair and make restitution either to the penitent or to the third party: for he was positively cooperating in the harm of another by counsel;

b) if the error was inculpable, likewise the confessor is bound, if he can without grave inconvenience, to repair; - but if he does not do this, he will have to make restitution.

The reason is that each one is bound from justice not only not to inflict harm on his neighbor directly and deliberately, but also to procure that harm not come to his neighbor from his action; but if he does not correct an error when he can, he is bound to make restitution by reason of the omitted retraction, which is truly the unjust and efficacious cause of the harm, by which that harm becomes voluntary and culpable. But he is bound only without grave inconvenience, because the harm does not arise from an unjust injury, since the action was inculpable.

630. Observations. - 1. According to can. 2369: a) A confessor who shall have presumed to violate the sacramental seal directly incurs by that very fact an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See in a most special manner.

b) But one 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 hear confessions, privation 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 decreed to be punished, according to the gravity of the guilt, by a salutary penalty (ferendae sententiae), which can even be excommunication.

2. In ecclesiastical law, according to can. 1757, § 3, the following are repelled as incapable of giving testimony: "priests, as regards all those things which have become known to them from sacramental confession, even if they have been released 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."

3. Lest the seal be broken indirectly, it is better always to respond in the same way. Thus, when asked about sins, let him say that he has heard or knows nothing; - when asked about absolution given, let him say: I have discharged my office, or: are such questions to be asked?; - when asked about communion to be ministered (e.g., in a hospital), let him say: ask the penitent whether he wishes to communicate.

4. Concerning a certificate of confession to be given or denied, let it be noted: a) such a certificate can always be given to all who truly intend sacramental confession, whether absolved or not absolved; - b) a certificate cannot be denied to an indisposed penitent who has 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 the penitent is in those circumstances in which it is customarily given, because it would be an indirect violation of the seal, since it would be revealed that the penitent had not confessed duly; - d) it must always be denied to those who simulate confession, even if this is done to obtain a certificate: for then there is no obligation of the seal, indeed the confessor, by giving the certificate, would falsely say that the penitent had confessed; nevertheless on account of grave inconveniences he could say that such a one approached him or that he heard him in the confessional; - e) a testimony of absolution granted cannot be written for one who was not absolved, because it would be to lie; yet if a printed certificate should imprudently exhibit a testimony of absolution, it would have to be handed over also to him who was not absolved, at least if generally it is customarily handed over, or he himself publicly asks for it: thus because of the seal; nor would the confessor lie, but he would only place the material act of handing over (or signing) the certificate for a proportionately grave reason, in circumstances which sufficiently indicate the restriction.

5. If the confessor in a difficult case needs counsel: a) he can have recourse to a theologian to whom the penitent is altogether unknown; - b) if this cannot be done, let him set forth the case in such a way that he avoids danger of revelation, i.e., as fictional, omitting non-necessary adjuncts from which the penitent could be known, and mixing in 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 to take counsel and to speak with another about a matter pertaining to confession; - d) but if this is denied, and in no way can he avoid the danger of revelation, let him send him to another confessor, or if this can scarcely be done, after diligently employing study and prayer, let him trust in God and solve the difficulty himself in the better way in which he can.