Section 4. Concerning Injury to the Seal.

415. Modes of Violating the Seal. 1. The seal can be violated in a twofold way, directly and indirectly.

a. It is violated directly if the sin accused in confession and the person of the penitent are manifested.

For direct violation of the seal it is required that the person of the penitent either be named expressly, e.g., Titius committed homicide, Peter was not absolved; or that he be so perfectly designated from the circumstances that he can certainly be known, although unknown to the hearers and never to be known by them, e.g., the prefect of such a city committed adultery. These words: the first today confessed adultery contain a direct violation of the seal if the hearers know him; otherwise, however, an indirect violation, more culpable in proportion as the danger of knowing the person of the penitent is greater.

In order that the seal be violated directly, it is not necessary that the hearers know that the confessor is speaking about matters heard in confession, but it suffices that he in fact does this.

b. It is violated indirectly if from those things which the confessor says or does there arises danger of knowing the sin of the penitent or of rendering the sacrament odious.

In order that the seal be violated indirectly, it is not necessary that the person of the penitent from those things which the confessor says or does be actually known, or that suspicion actually be suggested about him; but it suffices that this can happen by a prudent suspicion.

2. Direct violation of the seal does not admit smallness of matter, but indirect violation admits it. The reason for the first is that even through injury of the seal in light matter a grave injury is done to the sacrament; for the faithful would be greatly drawn away from it if they knew that confessors could reveal venial sins without grave sin, since they would always fear lest they judge grave sins to be venial and manifest them. The reason for the second is that indirect violation of the seal consists in the danger, from the sayings or deeds of the confessor, of knowing a defect of the penitent or of rendering the sacrament odious; but this danger can be very slight; therefore violation of the seal can also be slight.

Whether by some saying or deed the seal is violated indirectly is sometimes difficult to determine. The principle which ought to be kept before one's eyes is this: he who reports sins heard in confession, without naming the person, does not injure the seal unless there underlies danger of coming to knowledge or suspicion of the person, nor unless hatred of the sacrament arises. There are especially three things by which the sacrament is rendered odious: if from the sayings or deeds (omissions) of the confessor there arises suspicion of sin or defect of the penitent, defamation either of a community or of the penitent, or burden of the penitent.

a. He who, after hearing few penitents, reports some sin declared by one of them in confession injures the seal, because some suspicion arises concerning each, if the penitents are known to those to whom the sin is narrated.

b. He who says that he heard a grave sin in such a monastery injures the seal; likewise, he who says that he heard a grave sin from a religious of a determined order injures the seal if the order is not numerous and is of intact reputation, because some infamy redounds to the whole community or to the whole order and therefore to the penitent himself insofar as he is a member of the community or order. But the seal is not injured if the order is very numerous, especially if it is also of relaxed discipline, provided the danger of suspicion concerning some monastery in particular is excluded, because no one suffers detriment of reputation, neither a determinate person nor the order.¹

c. He who says that such a crime is rampant in some place, which he knows from confession, injures the seal, unless the crime is public or the place is very large (at least 3000 inhabitants); for from a revelation of this kind infamy redounds to the individual inhabitants if the place is small, but it does not redound if it is large.

d. A parish priest who, from the knowledge of confession, communicates with missionaries about which vices in the community especially need correction does not injure the seal if the vices are common or the place is sufficiently large. If the community is small (e.g., a small community of nuns) or the vices belong to a few, the seal is injured, because individuals are exposed to suspicion, or the hearers are affected with shame over their own defect.

¹ Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. II, n. 469 (n. 600); Casus consc. II, n. 551 ss.

416. Concerning the Use of Knowledge Received from Confession. St. Alphonsus wisely warns that the confessor should proceed cautiously, since in these matters every danger either of revelation or of burdening the penitent must with difficulty be avoided. Something else also must be carefully guarded against, namely that those who easily suspect and fear injury to the seal should not be scandalized. Therefore attention must be paid to three things, lest the use of knowledge from confession be illicit: a. that there be no danger of revelation; b. that no burden of the penitent or hatred of the sacrament arise; c. that no suspicion of a violated seal, and therefore scandal, be suggested to others.

1. It is never licit to use knowledge received from confession if there is danger of revelation, or if, even without any revelation, confession is thereby rendered odious, although from the non-use of it a far greater evil of the penitent would follow. And this indeed is not licit whether the penitent notices or does not notice that this is being done because of the sin accused by him; for the faithful would be drawn away from the sacrament of penance if they knew that confessors are permitted to use the knowledge of confession to the burden of the penitent, when neither the penitent nor others notice it.

a. Superiors cannot use knowledge of confession for external government, even if outwardly this appears in no way; for if the faithful knew that this is licit for superiors, confession would be rendered odious to them.¹ Therefore it is not licit to remove an unworthy man from office, which is a source of sinning for him; to deny suffrage in elections; to deny sacraments, unless it concerns a public sinner; or to change an arrangement, even one conceived only in the mind and not yet communicated to anyone.

b. If the confessor knows from confession that someone is of bad conscience, troublesome, or indisposed, he cannot on that account excuse himself from hearing his confession; for if penitents notice this manner of acting of confessors, they will manifestly be drawn away from the sacrament. He can, however, without injury to the seal excuse himself under another true pretext.²

c. Lest confessors be exposed to danger of breaking the seal, they are not to be questioned, e.g., by parents or teachers, about the morals of their penitents, nor are they to be consulted where there is question of someone to be promoted to orders or admitted into religion, etc.; they should testify only to the frequentation of the sacraments.

2. It is licit to use the knowledge of confession if there is no danger of revelation and no burden of the penitent by which confession would be rendered odious. And this indeed is licit whether the penitent notices that it is being done because of the sin accused by him or does not notice it; for if the use of knowledge received from confession is not burdensome to the penitent, confession cannot from it become more difficult, whether the penitent notices the use or does not notice it. Moreover the actions in which use of this kind is contained can either be concerned with the confessor himself or can be referred to the penitent.

a. From the knowledge of confession the confessor can: alpha. reform his own morals, perform his office better, watch over subjects more diligently, with the danger of revelation nevertheless excluded; beta. pray for the penitent, for the confessor uses the knowledge of confession before God, which is not illicit, and act more kindly toward him, even if the penitent notices that it is done because of his confession, since this cannot be unpleasant to him; gamma. consult books or theologians, with danger of revelation excluded; delta. direct himself from this knowledge, e.g., by prudently questioning or instructing others, toward tempering rigor, toward guarding himself from dangers of spiritual or temporal harm, which he knows penitents to have undergone; epsilon. warn others generally, e.g., that they should guard themselves or watch carefully, with danger of revelation nevertheless excluded.

b. Preachers can speak of those things of which they would not have thought unless they had heard confessions; but they must take care not to speak publicly about the particular sins of one or another penitent, especially before a small community, because this could easily be troublesome to the penitent. Thus, for example, a confessor of nuns can preach about defects which are commonly committed in the monastery, but not about some particular defect of some nun.

c. If a priest knew from confession that ambushes were being prepared for him, or that the wine which he uses for Mass had been infected with poison, it would not be licit for him to flee or omit Mass where from his flight or omission others could conjecture that the penitent conscious of the matter had confessed that sin, or the penitent would suffer harm or burden. Moreover, in order to save life the confessor could ask permission from the penitent to allow the indirect manifestation of the sin which would follow from the flight or omission. If the penitent, even unjustly, refused to give this permission, he would be unworthy of absolution; but the priest could not flee or omit the sacred rite.

d. A priest cannot without the penitent's permission dismiss a servant or take keys away from a servant whom he knows from confession to be unfaithful; for this manner of acting contains a certain reproach of the penitent and therefore brings him a burden. Whether in the confession itself he can command the servant to return the key or to depart of his own accord is disputed. Elbel affirms it, because he can command everything without which the penitent is not capable of absolution; Lugo denies it, because the command is not an act pertaining to confession, since it is not a necessary means of amendment.

Note. The confessor can do everything which he ought to do and which he would have done even if he had not heard the confession, namely what his office, ordinary diligence, and vigilance require, although from the things heard in confession he takes occasion for doing it and now would not have done it if he had not heard the confession. It is better, however, to warn the penitent about this matter, lest he take scandal, thinking that the seal is violated. But without the penitent's permission it is not licit for a confessor to do something on account of things heard in confession which otherwise he would not have done, if from it either danger of manifestation or burden of the penitent can arise. The event must be awaited which will furnish a new motive for doing what until now was not customarily done.

¹ Cn. 890. There exist on this matter two decrees of the holy see: one of Clement VIII, May 26, 1593, which forbids regular superiors to use knowledge received from confession for external government. Lugo rightly notes, disp. 23, n. 93, and after him St. Alphonsus, n. 656, that the decree is to be extended to all confessors, even if they are not superiors, in relation to any penitents whatsoever, even seculars, because the supreme pontiff in this decree does not establish a particular law but declares the divine law concerning sacramental secrecy. Therefore the opinion of the ancients must be corrected, that it is licit to use knowledge received from confession if this can be done without danger of manifesting the penitent's sin, that is, provided others cannot suspect anything about the penitent. The other decree, issued by the Holy Office by command of Innocent XI on November 18, 1682, pertains to all confessors and forbids the use of the knowledge of confession with burden of the penitent, even when the penitent by the use of it is freed from a greater burden or evil, especially from sin. Therefore this principle of the ancients must be corrected: it is licit to use the knowledge of confession when the penitent cannot be reasonably unwilling, e.g., when the use of sacramental knowledge is necessary to remove the penitent from sin. From this principle they permitted that the confessor close the doors, lest the servant whom he knows from confession to be going out to sin be able to go out.

² Cf. Lugo, disp. 23, n. 117.

417. Concerning a Certificate of Confession to Be Given or Denied. a. A certificate of confession should show nothing except testimony that confession was made on such a day, but not testimony that absolution was given, about which nothing should ever be added in the certificate. If, however, a printed certificate imprudently showed testimony of absolution, and such a certificate, on account of the seal, would have to be handed even to one not absolved, it would simply have to be handed over, or even signed, without anything being deleted, even if absolution had been denied; for that act of handing over, or signing, such a certificate does not seem to be a lie.

b. If absolution was denied to an indisposed penitent who made a sacramental confession: alpha. the certificate of confession is to be given if he asks outside confession; for if in this case it were denied, the confessor outside confession would use the knowledge of confession with burden of the penitent. beta. The certificate is to be given if he asks in confession and the denial is equivalent to an indirect violation of the seal, which happens when others, from the very denial of the certificate, come to knowledge of the denied absolution and therefore either of indisposition or of a reserved case in the penitent, as if, when those confessing are in a public place, a certificate is given to others and denied to one. gamma. A certificate of confession can be denied if he asks in the confession itself and the denial is not equivalent to indirect injury of the seal, because others come to knowledge of the denied absolution not from the very denial of the certificate but afterward; for just as the seal is not broken because absolution was denied, even though others come to knowledge of it, e.g., from the fact that he abstains from holy communion, so also the seal is not broken because a certificate was denied, even though others, from the fact that he does not bring a certificate, come to knowledge of the denied absolution. But when a reasonable and just cause exists, the certificate in this case can also be given, because sacramental confession was made.

c. If the penitent did not make a sacramental confession, but only simulates confession, or if he asks for a certificate in order that, without confessing, he may show it to a teacher or parish priest, e.g., before marriage, it is altogether to be denied; for on the one hand there is here no danger of injuring the seal, which does not arise except from sacramental confession, and on the other hand the confessor, because he gives the certificate, lies and easily cooperates in an unworthy reception of the sacrament of the Eucharist or of matrimony.

Note. Concerning a confessor needing counsel. If a confessor in a difficult case needs counsel: a. let him have recourse to a theologian to whom the penitent is altogether unknown; b. if this cannot be done and there is danger of revelation, let him ask permission from the penitent to speak with another about a matter pertaining to the confession; or c. let him propose the case in such a way that he avoids danger of revelation, that is, as fictitious, omitting all non-necessary circumstances and mixing in other false ones which do not change the substance of the matter; d. if he does not have permission and cannot in any way avoid the danger of revelation, after diligence in study and prayer has been applied, let him solve the knot by his own judgment.