Case 31. Unlawful Use of Confessional Matter

Caius, a priest, after making his confession to Titius, a priest, asks whether he acted rightly in the following cases. Caius has charge of orphans of both sexes and, when asked to send a fifteen-year-old boy to undertake a certain employment, selected one imbued with evil morals who was corrupting the others, as he knew from confessions, but who was suited to discharge the employment, although others were equally suited; he said to himself that the boy’s absence would benefit both the boy and the other orphans. He was asked by an assistant priest to send a sixteen-year-old girl to serve a married Catholic man who, however, as Caius knew from his confessions, was accustomed to corrupt all young maidservants. Caius denied that he could do this, although there were several suitable candidates. It is asked:

1. What is the secrecy of the seal, and whence does it arise?

2. How is the secrecy of the seal violated?

3. What kind of sin does one who violates the seal commit?

4. What must Titius answer?

The first question was answered above, p. 222.

2. How is the seal of confession violated?

The seal may be violated either directly or indirectly. It is violated directly when the confessor says that such a penitent told him such a sin in confession. It is violated indirectly when the confessor says or does anything, or abstains from saying or doing anything, from which others may come to the knowledge of confessional matter, or by which the penitent may be aggrieved or confession made odious.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 231.

3. What sort of a sin is it to violate the seal?

It is a grave sacrilege against justice and charity, nor does direct violation admit of light matter although indirect violation does when the danger of revelation of confessional matter is slight and remote.²

2 Ibid., 229.

4. What should Titius answer?

Titius should tell Caius that he was not justified in making use of knowledge gained in the confessional to guide him in his treatment of the orphans. In neither case, it is true, did Caius make known anything that he had heard in the confessional, but it might happen that in such a case as the first the penitent would be aggrieved by being sent away from the orphanage, and if it were known that such use was made of the confessional it would make confession more difficult and odious. This test seems decisive: What would be the effect on penitents if they knew that the confessor used knowledge gained from confession in the manner indicated in the first case? If it were taught that such use of knowledge gained in the confessional is lawful, the duty of confession would certainly be made more difficult, and this is a proof that such action is a violation of the seal. In the second case the confessor’s action tends obviously to the displeasure and disadvantage of the penitent. He should have tried to correct his penitent’s morals, and thus safeguard the virtue of his orphans.