2. On the Obligation of the Seal of Confession

443. a) Notion of the seal. The sacramental seal, or the seal of confession, is the strictest obligation of preserving secrecy concerning all those things which were said by the penitent in order to sacramental absolution and the revelation of which would render the sacrament burdensome or odious. This definition, commonly given by theologians, will be explained more fully in treating the subject, matter, obligation, and violation of the seal.³⁸⁹

b) The primary subject of the seal is indeed the confessor; but secondarily all those who (fortuitously or deliberately, legitimately or illegitimately) heard something from a sacramental confession;³⁹⁰ but not the penitent himself.

Therefore the following are bound to the seal: a man who hears confessions while pretending that he is a priest;³⁹¹ a confessor who is consulted, even outside the sacrament of penance, concerning sins accused; one who reads the written confession of another, at least if it is found in the hands of the confessor or in the proper place of confession, that is, in the place where the confessor sits;³⁹² an interpreter employed for the confession; those standing near the confessional who by chance or deliberately hear the things which are accused; the superior from whom the faculty of absolving from reserved cases is sought; a counselor to whom the case is referred with the permission of the penitent. Thus at least more probably.³⁹³ Although the penitent himself is not bound by the sacramental secret, because the seal was introduced in his favor and not in that of the confessor, nevertheless he is bound by the natural and entrusted secret concerning those things which the confessor said to him in confession, if harm would arise to the confessor from their revelation. And in truth, a penitent who speaks concerning the statements of the confessor often acts exceedingly unbecomingly and illicitly, since the confessor, bound by the seal, can in no way defend himself. Nevertheless, since experience testifies that penitents not rarely speak concerning things heard in the tribunal of penance, the greatest prudence is necessary for the confessor, lest he say anything which could cause inconvenience to himself.

³⁸⁹ St. Thomas briefly says: "The seal of confession is nothing other than the duty of concealing a confession" (In 4 Sent., dist. 21, q. 3, a. 4, sol. 3). Bertrand Kurtscheid, O.F.M., learnedly treats the history of the seal of confession in Das Beichtsiegel in seiner geschichtl. Entwicklung (Freiburg, 1912).

³⁹⁰ Code of Canon Law, c. 889, § 2.

³⁹¹ Concerning this matter St. Thomas writes: "The seal of confession belongs to the priest insofar as he is the minister of this sacrament.... Nevertheless, just as someone who is not a priest in some case participates in the act of the key when he hears a confession because of necessity, so he participates in the act of the seal of confession and is bound to conceal it, although, properly speaking, he does not have the seal of confession" (In 4 Sent., dist. 21, q. 3, a. 1, sol. 3).

³⁹² Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 650.

³⁹³ Cf. St. Thomas, l.c., and a. 2 ad 4; St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 648.

444. c) The object of the seal, or its matter, consists of: alpha) all mortal sins accused in general and in species, and venial sins accused in species (unless they are known to the confessor from elsewhere); beta) all those things which became known by reason of sacramental confession and the revelation of which would redound to the burden of the penitent, for example, the circumstances of sins, accomplices, and defects of the penitent.

But those things whose revelation does not redound to the burden of the penitent or to hatred of the sacrament are not matter of the seal, such as the gifts and virtues of the penitent. Nevertheless, even these sometimes fall under the natural secret.

You will resolve:

1. The confessor is bound to the seal even if he had to deny absolution to the penitent; for a sacramental confession was present, although the sacrament was not completed. For the root from which the seal arises is not sacramental absolution, but the "penitential judgment," as the Fourth Lateran Council says.³⁹⁴

2. The penance imposed is also an object of the seal (at least if it is grave), since from the penance someone could conclude the gravity of the sins accused; likewise, knowledge of an accomplice obtained from confession; likewise, absolution denied, but not (ordinarily) absolution given. Nevertheless, in practice let the confessor not say or write: I absolved such a penitent. Cf. below, n. 447, on writing a certificate of confession.

3. The natural defects of the penitent, for example, scrupulosity, illegitimate birth, and so forth, are matter of the seal if they are known from confession alone and if the penitent endeavors to conceal them outside confession.

4. A confessor, after hearing the confession of some notorious thief, can indeed speak concerning those thefts as things already known to himself and to others from elsewhere; but he can by no means say: The public thief confessed his thefts to me. For in no case is it lawful for him to say that he heard something in confession.³⁹⁵

5. It is indeed not directly contrary to the seal if the confessor says: The penitent lives so innocently that he scarcely confesses venial sins, because every man commits venial sins; nevertheless, locutions of this kind must also be avoided, as also narratives concerning the virtues and gifts of the penitent, because otherwise some indirect violation of the seal can easily occur, and, moreover, because penitents are accustomed to bear such narratives with difficulty.

6. It is not contrary to the sacramental seal if the confessor, in a process of canonization, testifies concerning the sanctity of his penitent. For such testimony neither redounds to the burden of the penitent, since it is given after his death, nor renders confession odious. Nevertheless, the Code of Canon Law, c. 1757, § 3, n. 2, wisely establishes: "Priests are incapable [of giving testimony] with regard to all those things which became known to them from sacramental confession, even if they have been released from the bond of the seal."

7. The confessor is not bound to the seal if the penitent narrated his sins not for the sake of confessing sacramentally, but from another motive, for example, to test the confessor, to obtain his assistance or counsel, to mock him, and so forth. The reason is that sacramental confession alone is the root from which the obligation of the sacramental seal arises.

Note. Outside confession the confessor cannot licitly speak concerning confessed sins even with the penitent himself unless the permission of the penitent has first been obtained, and that altogether freely granted; but in confession itself the confessor can speak even concerning sins declared in previous confessions. When the penitent of his own accord speaks outside confession concerning his sins, by that very fact he gives the confessor permission to speak concerning the same sins, but not concerning others declared previously.

³⁹⁴ c. 12, X 5, 38.

³⁹⁵ Cf. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 11, a. 5 ad 2.

445. d) The obligation of the seal, which arises from a threefold source, namely, from natural, divine, and ecclesiastical law, is most strict, so that it admits no exception.

Natural law demands the seal, because the penitent does not manifest his sins except under the condition of secrecy. Therefore a quasi-contract intervenes between the penitent and the confessor. Then, from the injury of the seal, great harm would often arise to the penitent. Therefore natural law demands the seal. Nevertheless, from natural law it cannot be strictly proved that the seal admits no exception, although this can be shown to some extent by the following argument:³⁹⁶ A confessor who violates the seal of confession lies. But natural law prohibits lying at any time. Therefore it is never lawful to violate the seal of confession. A confessor who violates the seal seems to lie, because he who affirms something which he does not know commits a lie. But the confessor knows the sins not as a man, but as the vicar of God.³⁹⁷ When, however, he relates them, he no longer acts as the vicar of God, since this would be blasphemy, but as a man. But as a man he does not know the sins; and consequently, if he speaks concerning them, he says something which he does not know and therefore lies.

Divine law, indeed not explicit but implicit, demands the seal. For although Christ explicitly determined nothing concerning the sacramental seal, nevertheless, in instituting the sacrament of penance after the manner of a judgment in which the faithful are bound to accuse their own sins, He implicitly instituted the seal. And in truth, if the most strict obligation of the seal did not exist, confession would often become odious, scandalous, and truly harmful. For if sins heard in confession were manifested, the reputation of the penitent would be endangered, great harm would often arise to him, and social and domestic peace would perish. Therefore Christ, in instituting the confession of all sins, implicitly willed that sins accused in confession be preserved in secret. In the first centuries, indeed, public penance flourished in the Church and at that time produced good fruits because of the fervor of Christians, but today public confession would be dangerous.

Ecclesiastical law. In the Decree of Gratian³⁹⁸ it is stated: "Before all things let the priest beware lest he recount to anyone the sins of those who confess to him.... For if he does this, let him be deposed and let him go on wandering ignominiously all the days of his life."³⁹⁹ The Fourth Lateran Council (a. 1215) thus established: "But let [the priest] beware altogether lest by word or sign or any other manner whatsoever he in any way betray the sinner. But if he should need more prudent counsel, let him cautiously seek it without any expression of the person, since we decree that he who should presume to reveal a sin disclosed to him in the penitential judgment is not only to be deposed from the priestly office, but is also to be thrust into a strict monastery to perform perpetual penance."⁴⁰⁰ The Code of Canon Law, c. 889, § 1, establishes: "The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore let the confessor diligently beware lest by word or sign or any other manner whatsoever and for any cause whatsoever he in any way betray the sinner."

The obligation of the sacramental seal is so strict that neither dispensation nor epikeia can be admitted in it. The penitent alone can grant permission for the confessor to speak concerning the matter of the seal outside confession. Thus the certain and most common opinion, which St. Thomas already taught⁴⁰¹ and which Alexander of Hales,⁴⁰² Scotus,⁴⁰³ and a few others groundlessly denied, teaching that not even the penitent can grant permission to the confessor. According to the present discipline, absolutely no case is given in which it is lawful to make external use of knowledge of sins obtained from sacramental confession. In ancient times several authors excepted certain cases,⁴⁰⁴ but today their opinion is not safe. For Clement VIII, on May 26, 1593, prescribed to religious: "Both superiors existing at the time and confessors who afterward have been promoted to the grade of superior are to beware most diligently lest they use for external governance that knowledge which they obtained in confession concerning the sins of others."⁴⁰⁵ And the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition on November 18, 1682, condemned the proposition: "It is lawful to use knowledge acquired from confession, provided that it is done without direct or indirect revelation and without burden to the penitent, unless something else much graver should follow from not using it, in comparison with which the former is deservedly held of little account."⁴⁰⁶

³⁹⁶ This argument is impugned by Scotus and others.

³⁹⁷ Cf. St. Thomas, l.c., a. 1 ad 1.

³⁹⁸ c. 2, dist. 6, De poenit.

³⁹⁹ That decree is not indeed found in St. Gregory the Great, as Gratian seems to indicate, but something similar was defined at the Second Council of Douzy in the Province of Reims in the year 874: "All clerics as well as laymen or women who confess their sins to priests in secret confession and deplore them with the satisfaction of worthy penance are by no means to be betrayed, and their sins are to be manifested by the priest to no one by any signification whatsoever, except to the Lord alone in secret prayer." Cf. Sebastian Berardi, Gratiani Canones genuini et apocryphi, P. 2, t. 2, p. 179, where other particular Councils are also adduced.

⁴⁰⁰ It is contained in c. 12, X 5, 38.

⁴⁰¹ In 4 Sent., dist. 21, q. 3, a. 2 ad 1.

⁴⁰² S. theol., P. 4, q. 19, membr. 2, a. 3.

⁴⁰³ In 4 Sent., dist. 21, q. 2, n. 18.

⁴⁰⁴ Several older authors, for example, Huguccio; St. Raymond of Penafort (Summa, de poenit. et matr. l. 3, tit. 38, § 60); Alexander of Hales (S. theol. P. 4, q. 19, membr. 2, a. 2); Innocent IV (Apparatus ad 5 libr. Decretal., c. 12, X 5, 38); and Sylvester Prierias (Summa Summ., s.v. "Confessio" III, n. 5), think that the sacramental seal extends only to past sins. But if some penitent in sacramental confession were to reveal that he wished to commit a grave crime, then the confessor could denounce the penitent if no other means of preventing the crime were present. This doctrine seems to have arisen from a text of the Decree of Gratian (c. 8, C. 22, q. 5) accepted too universally and unduly extended to sacramental confession. Cf. Kurtscheid, Das Beichtsiegel, pp. 71 ff.

⁴⁰⁵ Cf. also Code of Canon Law, c. 890.

⁴⁰⁶ Denz., n. 1220.

446. From these things it follows that the use of knowledge from confession with a burden to the penitent is prohibited, even:

a) For the greatest spiritual or temporal good of the confessor.

Hence a confessor cannot confess some sin of his own whose accusation would involve a violation of the seal. A confessor, knowing from confession that death threatens himself, can indeed oblige the penitent under grave sin to manifest this to him outside confession; but if the latter refuses, the confessor can now do nothing except entrust himself to the assistance of God. Nevertheless, there are several authors who in this case permit the confessor to free himself from an imminent danger to his life or from great harm,⁴⁰⁷ provided this is done without burden to the penitent. But almost always at least some burden to the penitent is present, and confession is rendered odious if the confessor, against the will of the penitent, externally uses knowledge derived from confession. Therefore the opposite opinion is to be followed in practice, and consequently it is lawful to injure the seal of confession for the avoidance of no evil whatsoever. - A parish priest who knows from confession alone that his own maid is pregnant or continually commits thefts cannot dismiss her from the house. - A confessor, knowing from confession that someone is not a priest, is nevertheless bound to continue confessing to such a pretended priest who was his ordinary confessor. Thus St. Alphonsus.⁴⁰⁸

b) For the good of the commonwealth.

Hence a confessor who knows from confession that someone is a traitor to his country cannot manifest this; or that someone is a murderer, he cannot betray him in order to save the life of some innocent person.

c) For the good of religion.

Thus a confessor who knows from the confession of the bridegroom a sin of the bride, although she sacrilegiously conceals this sin, must give her absolution and afterward also Communion, although he knows her to be in the state of mortal sin. There are indeed some older authors who say that in this case the confessor not only can but must deny Communion if it is sought secretly. For, on the one hand, the precept of not giving what is holy to dogs then presses; but on the other hand, no violation of the seal intervenes, nor would confession be rendered odious to one truly penitent; for confession would perhaps be rendered odious only to the most wicked men, who themselves ought to confess that the priest acted rightly. The same authors teach that a bishop ought to deny orders to one known from confession to be unworthy, and that a parish priest ought to refuse assistance at a marriage in which he knows from confession that a diriment impediment is present. But deservedly St. Alphonsus⁴⁰⁹ calls the opposite opinion true and altogether to be held today, because Innocent XI, by the decree of the Sacred Inquisition cited above, prohibited every use of knowledge obtained from confession with a burden to the penitent.

Note. So strict is the obligation of preserving the sacramental seal that in this matter it is not lawful to follow merely probable opinions,⁴¹⁰ because here there is no longer question of a merely private licitness, but of avoiding the spiritual harm of the whole Christian community.

⁴⁰⁷ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 659.

⁴⁰⁸ Ibid., n. 660.

⁴⁰⁹ Ibid., n. 658.

⁴¹⁰ Ibid., n. 633.

447. e) Injury to the seal can occur in two ways: directly and indirectly. The seal is directly violated if the matter of the seal and the person of the penitent are revealed; for example, a confessor says: Peter confessed to me the sin of homicide. The seal is indirectly injured if, from those things which the confessor says or does, a proximate danger arises of learning the sin of the penitent or of rendering the sacrament odious. Hence, for an indirect violation of the seal it is not required that the penitent and his sin actually be manifested, but it suffices that this can probably occur.

alpha) A direct violation of the seal admits no smallness of matter and is always a grave sin both against justice, because the confessor injures the quasi-contract of concealment entered into and not rarely diminishes the reputation of the penitent, and against religion, because he renders the sacrament of penance odious. A confessor who presumes directly to violate the sacramental seal is punished with an excommunication reserved in a most special manner to the Supreme Pontiff.⁴¹¹

beta) An indirect violation of the seal admits smallness of matter, because the danger arising from it can be very slight and therefore does not always constitute grave fault. But if grave fault was present, this violation can be punished with the gravest penalties, namely, with the same penalties as the crime of solicitation to shameful things, for example, suspension from the celebration of Mass and from hearing confessions, privation of benefices and dignities, and so forth.⁴¹²

Some ways in which the seal is indirectly violated:

1. If the confessor relates that sins of lust are rampant in some college or convent or small village, which he indeed does not know except from confession. For then infamy redounds upon the whole community, and it can rather easily be suspected who committed such a sin. Hence a confessor addressing a small community ought not to describe some particular sin in such a way that the penitents rightly think this is done because of confession. But if the community is large, for example, containing more than 3,000 inhabitants, and the confessor has heard a great number of confessions, he would not injure the seal if he spoke concerning some particular sin heard; but even then he would act most imprudently.

2. If, in relating something from confession, the confessor describes such circumstances that the penitent can probably be recognized. Celebrated is that example of a parish priest who, after twenty-five years of priesthood, relates in company that his first penitent confessed adultery to him. A little afterward a man enters and relates in the hearing of all: I was your first penitent.

3. If the confessor admonishes parents that they should watch their daughter especially in these circumstances, while he knows from confession that the daughter sinned in these circumstances.

4. If the confessor, after hearing a confession, changes his manner of acting toward the penitent, for example, by addressing him with harsher words, taking the keys away from him, or rebuking the accomplice of the penitent.

5. If the confessor refuses a "certificate of confession" where such a certificate is in use. For from this it is easily inferred that the penitent was not absolved. Therefore the confessor is bound to give a certificate even to an indisposed penitent who insistently seeks it (provided he truly and not fictitiously confessed); but on it he should not write: received absolution, but: confessed.

6. If the confessor refuses to hear the confession of some penitent for the sole reason that he knows him from a preceding confession to be scrupulous or indisposed.

⁴¹¹ Code of Canon Law, c. 2369, § 1.

⁴¹² Ibid.

448. Admonition. Most excellently, in an Instruction of the Holy Office sent on June 9, 1915, to all local Ordinaries and Superiors of religious and regular Institutes, confessors are commanded "never to dare to touch, especially on the occasion of Missions and Spiritual Exercises, upon anything belonging to the matter of sacramental confession, under any form and under any pretext whatsoever, not even in passing and neither directly nor indirectly ... in their public or private discourses." Hence let confessors never intermix in common conversations words concerning things heard in confession, nor relate the scruples, inward vexations, and absurdities of those confessing, even when the name of the penitent is withheld, under the pretext that things of this kind are not sins. In one word: Let the confessor speak concerning matters of confession only with God, by praying for the penitents. For the sake of obtaining counsel, he can indeed sometimes prudently consult another learned confessor, but let him avoid every danger of injury to the seal. Otherwise, let him first obtain the permission of the penitent. Let him not use knowledge drawn from confessions except for procuring his own salvation more efficaciously and for exercising greater dexterity in the governance of souls. But every other use of this knowledge which is joined with a burden to the penitent is gravely prohibited, although danger of revelation of the sacramental secret is absent. Hence such knowledge can in no way be employed for external governance.⁴¹³

⁴¹³ Code of Canon Law, c. 890.