Case 6. Denunciation of Offender

Caius, a boy who was staying in a certain Catholic college for the sake of education, confessed to Paul, his confessor, that, having been solicited by another boy, he had gravely sinned against the sixth commandment more than once. Paul judged that the danger of a future fall was not slight, and therefore declared to Caius a grave obligation of revealing the name of the accomplice to the prefect or another superior. When Caius refused to satisfy this obligation, Paul intimated to him that it was sufficient to write the name of the one soliciting him on a closed paper and deliver it to him; when Caius refused to do even this, Paul dismissed him without absolution. Hence it is asked:

1. What is fraternal correction, and what is its obligation?

2. How ought it to be made?

3. Is it lawful for a confessor to inquire from penitents the name of an accomplice?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. This question is answered in “Manual of Moral Theology,” vol. i, p. 194.

2. The answer to this is given in “Manual of Moral Theology,” vol. i, p. 195.

3. May confessors ask from penitents the name of those with whom they have sinned?

In three different constitutions Benedict XIV condemned the practice of asking from penitents the names of those with whom they have sinned, and imposed severe penalties on those confessors who do this. The constitution Apostolicae Sedis of Pius IX imposed the penalty of excommunication reserved to the Pope on all who teach or defend as being lawful the practice of asking for the name of an accomplice in sin, as it was condemned by Benedict XIV in the Constitutions Suprema, July 7, 1745, Ubi Primum, June 2, 1746, Ad Eradicandum, Sept. 28, 1746. Benedict XIV in those constitutions expressly supposes that there are occasions when it is allowed to ask the name of an accomplice, and the confessor is justified in asking about the circumstances in which a sin was committed with a view to the integrity of confession and fulfilling the duty incumbent on him of prescribing remedies against sin even when such inquiries disclose to him the identity of the accomplice.¹

1 St. Alphonsus, book vi, nos. 491, 499.

4. The case. Caius is under the obligation of taking the necessary means for guarding himself against a relapse; he is bound by the precept of fraternal correction to try to amend his accomplice; and he is under a general obligation of charity to prevent great harm coming to the college in future from the presence of a black sheep among the boys. Practically and ordinarily the only way in which he can fulfil these obligations is to denounce the offender to the authorities. Paul, the confessor, was therefore right so far. He was, however, a little precipitate. He should, first of all, have tried to discover the boy’s dispositions with respect to denouncing his accomplice before telling him that he was under a grave obligation to do it. Paul might perhaps have discovered that Caius had some sort of excuse, such as fear of consequences, for not making the denunciation, or that he was under the impression that he could not be bound to do such a thing, and then perhaps the confessor might have seen reason not to proceed to extremities with the boy all at once. It is of immediate necessity that Caius should take means to preserve himself from falling again, and giving information to the authorities is not absolutely necessary for that.