Case 24. Asking the Name of an Accomplice

Albert, a boy fourteen years of age residing in a certain Catholic college, accuses himself in confession of a shameful sin committed with another boy. Questioned by the confessor, he spontaneously admits that he had committed the same sin several times before after being solicited by the same accomplice. Since the confessor prudently fears that the same thing will happen again, he asks whether Albert is prepared to employ every means to prevent a relapse, even to denounce the accomplice. The boy says that he will willingly disclose the accomplice’s name to the confessor himself, but in no way to the superiors, although he willingly grants the confessor the faculty to disclose the matter to the superiors. From the circumstances the confessor judges it altogether necessary for preventing a relapse, and also for the common good of the college, that the accomplice in the case be denounced to the superiors; hence he thinks that the boy cannot be absolved when he refuses this burden, yet thinks that it is not lawful for him to inquire into the accomplice’s name. Hence it is asked:

1. What is to be said of the necessity of confessing a sin if thereby the accomplice in the sin is disclosed to the confessor?

2. What is to be said of a confessor who inquires into the accomplice’s name?

What must be done by the confessor in the case?

1. Is it necessary to confess a sin if in so doing an accomplice in the sin is made known to the confessor?

If possible the penitent should go to a confessor who would not know the accomplice in the sin. If he can not conveniently do this, it is a controverted point as to whether he should mention the sin, which can not be confessed without also betraying an accomplice, or not. Some authorities hold that he may not mention the sin because the natural law of secrecy about another’s sin is stricter than the positive law about the integrity of confession. Others hold the contrary opinion, because for good reason we may make known the secret sin of another. Both opinions are probable, so that the penitent may follow either.¹

1 Bucceroni, vol. ii, n. 720.

2. May a confessor ask the name of an accomplice?

In the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis the first of the excommunications reserved to the Holy See is incurred by those who teach or defend as lawful the practice of inquiring from penitents the name of an accomplice in sin as the practice was condemned by Benedict XIV. The practice then is in general unlawful. However, as Benedict XIV himself supposes, there are certain cases in which the penitent is bound to denounce an accomplice, and sometimes this can. only be done to or through a confessor, who may then ask the name of an accomplice.²

2 Ibid., 1178 ff.

3. The case. The good of the college requires that the boy who corrupts his school fellows should be denounced to the authorities when this is necessary to prevent future grave sins. This could only be done in the circumstances of the case by Albert himself. He was therefore under a grave obligation of doing this, and could not be absolved if he refused to do it. As he absolutely refused to denounce his accomplice personally to the authorities, but was not unwilling to tell the confessor, to whom he also gave leave to mention the matter to the authorities, the confessor may ask him to write the boy’s name on a slip of paper and put it in an envelope and give it to him, and that he will see that it goes to the authorities. In doing this the confessor would do nothing wrong, but only help the boy to do his duty.