Chapter VII: On the Sacramental Seal

— Appendix XII belongs to this section. Historical. Cf. Appendix XII.

— Notion. By his sacramental confession the penitent entrusts to the confessor a deposit inviolably sealed, whose seal can be violated directly or indirectly.

Direct violation is committed by him who narrates, with designation of the person to whom it pertains, a matter which is protected by the seal.

Indirect violation is of two kinds. Properly so called, or strictly taken, it is committed when that revelation is not intended but permitted, that is, when by speech or action diverse and directed to another end, danger is incurred lest what must be covered by the seal be manifested. This will be done when either the matter is narrated without open designation of the person, or the person is designated without indication of the matter, but with danger of manifesting the person, or of injecting suspicion of the matter.

Even with every danger of revelation excluded, every use of sacramental knowledge with a burden to the penitent is wholly prohibited to the confessor (c. 890, §1). This use can be referred to a certain more broadly so-called violation of the seal. And this will be committed when, on account of his accusation, the penitent suffers some burden distinct from suspicion of sin, whether he truly feels that burden, or at least it would be burdensome to penitents in general if such use of sacramental knowledge were lawful: as if someone, without the faculty of the penitent, should speak with him concerning sins accused.

But especially by c. 890, §2, every use for external governance is prohibited, of knowledge which has been had concerning sins in confession.

Finally an improperly so-called or analogical violation of the seal is had, without use of strictly sacramental knowledge, when something is revealed which brings a burden to the penitent, or renders confession odious, as if, in circumstances in which this is displeasing, you should say that such a one approached for confessing, or should reveal a defect of body or mind.

Less accurate modes of speaking have introduced no small confusion in this matter and have given place to various controversies. In the Code, on the contrary, c. 889 is destined to the seal strictly so called, whose obligation is distinguished in c. 890 from the prohibited use of sacramental knowledge with a burden to the penitent, or from the forbidden violation more broadly accepted.

If we comprehend every violation, even more broadly accepted, but not the analogical, we shall describe the obligation arising from the seal, or the obligation of the seal, as an obligation, inviolable in every case, of keeping silent, even after the penitent has died, concerning things said in order to sacramental absolution, whose revelation or manifestation would render the sacrament burdensome or odious.

— Demonstration. Thesis. By divine natural law itself, given the institution of the sacrament of Penance and of secret confession, there is imposed on anyone receiving knowledge of a matter signified by the penitent for fulfilling the burden of confessing sacramentally, the obligation of the sacramental seal, by which it is prohibited absolutely, or without any exception, to reveal the knowledge thus received, indeed to use it by any reason of which the penitent, on account of some burden, could reasonably be unwilling.

For, for the immediate reconciliation of the Christian with God, Christ, the author of the sacraments, requires confession made to a priest, which at the same time he permitted to be made to him alone, as if to God. And he wished this to be for the remedy of every sin altogether. Therefore he instituted confession and made it necessary for the sole end of one's own salvation and of the grace of the sacrament, simply or better to be obtained through the ministry of the priest. But when a thing has been divinely instituted for one sole end, any use of the thing by which that end is even lightly impeded is an abuse of the thing substantially or accidentally against that end, and therefore intrinsically dishonorable. I say substantially or accidentally against that end, according as the end itself is substantially either corrupted or, although wounded, remains intact.

But every use of knowledge drawn from confession, which it can be in the interest of the penitent not to be made, unless it has been made from the full consent of the penitent, is at least suited to impeding that end, since it renders perfect sincerity, and access itself to the confessor, more difficult. Besides, the order in which sacramental reconciliation is placed is the order of man's relation to God, or quasi-divine. This excellence of order removes every reason for thinking that an exception has been divinely conceded, so that some human good may be consulted. On the contrary, it is established that a slight utility of a higher order must be preferred to every utility of an inferior order. Therefore by natural divine precept every law of the seal is sanctioned with that force which we have said.

This precept is of religion, since it immediately protects man's relations to God. The obligation of justice is also added. For from the fact that he permitted, indeed commanded, that all baptized sinners use that sacrament and therefore make secret confession, Christ gave to all of them an absolutely inviolable right, transcending the order of natural justice, of attempting this remedy by doing whatever seemed to be demanded by them for its perfect use. Therefore the knowledge which was their own before confession, after communication in confession remains their own for every non-sacramental use, and this by force of a sacred right which can be destroyed by no contrary human right, since every human right is of an inferior order. Wherefore neither the safety of the people nor the malice of the penitent removes or diminishes that right.

Thus Christ, while he instituted secret confession according to the discretion and dominion of the penitent, at the same time gave to every penitent a royal safe-conduct, by which at the same time he promised perfect security from every inconvenience or burden extrinsic to confession.

But that this security affects whatever the penitent thinks must be said or manifested for accusing himself is gathered from the manifest intention of the divine Author. For Christ wishes men to use his remedy in the best way. But the more fully the accused manifests himself, by so much the more perfect of itself he permits the account of judgment which is in that sacrament to be. Therefore the law of the seal has the extension which we have described in the formula of the thesis.

Most with us hold that the obligation of the seal is natural, which follows upon the institution of the sacrament; and they think that the root of the absolute and perpetual obligation must be sought in the superior order of that knowledge. But others, with Richard, think that in forbidden communication the guilt of a lie must be detected, since the priest as man knows nothing; others, the guilt of violated fidelity and of a secret tacitly committed; others, the guilt of sacrilege, on account of the sacred nature of that knowledge, or on account of injury done to the sacrament, from which men would be drawn away, if in any case it were lawful to manifest matters accused. This is held by Suarez, Paenit., d. 13, s. 1, n. 7; Lugo, Paenit., d. 23, n. 8-15; d'Annib., III, 358 (8); Ball.-Palm., V, n. 591. - Vasquez, in 3 P., q. 93, art. 4, d. 1, n. 9.10, with whom Coninck, q. 9, d. 2, n. 34, and Tamburini, De sigillo, c. 1, n. 2, agree, think that the rigor of the obligation cannot be explained without a positive precept which Christ added to the natural force of the institution.

There is also one, like Lehmk., II, 586, who seeks help from the danger of hallucination, which we judge superfluous. We do not think that we disagree with St. Thomas. For in Suppl. 3 p., q. 11 art. 1 ad 2 and ad 4, he indicates the source of the obligation in the divine precept which follows the sacrament, and seeks the argument from the quasi-divine nature of the knowledge had by the priest who acts in the place of God.

A fuller explanation of the seal flows down an easy channel from the demonstrated thesis.

— Subject of the Seal. By the seal is bound:

1. The confessor. If he is questioned concerning a matter heard in confession, he can deny, even with an oath, that he knows or has heard the matter, since every question naturally ought to refer itself to his human knowledge, not to quasi-divine knowledge; but if the one questioning maliciously extends it to sacramental knowledge, he cannot expect a serious response, and we are outside formal conversation.

But what if from the denial of the confessor they infer that the confession was not integral? If anything of this kind is to be feared, the confessor should decline a direct response, by saying, for example, that the penitent accused his sins and that he himself fulfilled his office; or, better, if it can be done, he should rebuke the questioner concerning his rash or imprudent interrogation; or simply recall that outside confession he must always be ignorant of what perhaps he heard within confession, so that whether he heard it or not, his response must be the same.

For this reason also, if in a hospital he is asked whether the sick person whose confession he heard is to be communicated or not, let him regularly remit the questioner to the penitent, who has first been taught by him concerning the response to be made, so that he may declare whether or not he wishes to be refreshed by the sacred food. If the sick person asked him that the confessor himself should wish to take care of Communion, let the confessor narrate this mandate of the penitent, while he asks Communion for him;

2. The Superior to whom one to be absolved, or one absolved, from a reserved thing presents himself, or from whom license of absolving is sought;

3. An interpreter, whose help the penitent uses in confession, or he who, within confession, has written the accusation for an uneducated person. Some extend the obligation to him who before confession wrote the sins of an uneducated person, which we think must rather be denied, because he offers his work, which besides is not prescribed, outside confession, nor can confession be judged to have been begun before him;

4. One who by chance, even without fault, has heard something covered by the seal. He who has deliberately raised his ears has already acted against the seal.

They would not be held who heard a confession which the penitent wished to make public. But if, which God forbid, a preacher should violate the seal before the whole multitude, Suarez says, with Lehmk., II, 596, 7, approving, that all are so held to the seal that they cannot even speak among themselves concerning the matter heard;

5. All to whom something has been sacrilegiously or imprudently revealed against the seal;

6. A doctor or another who is consulted with the permission of the penitent; for knowledge is given to him for the end of obtaining absolution rightly. Thus the more common opinion. Some opine otherwise, since the knowledge of that doctor is not from confession. This license given by the penitent permits several conversations until the judgment has been completed (St. Alph., VI, 648).

Wherefore if someone is to be approached to whom restitution must be made, or with whom peace is to be concluded, it will be expedient that the confessor obtain a greater faculty by which the matter may remain sealed only by natural secrecy; and regularly he should accept the burden of such a mandate only under that condition (cf. Lugo, Paen., d. 23, n. 29; Lehmk., II, 596).

Yet he whom the penitent himself consults about making confession is held only by natural secrecy, unless, on account of a manifested will subsequently to confess to him, the consultation seems to put on the account of a begun confession;

7. He who reads a written confession while the penitent is actually using it for confessing.

Several say the same, if one left in the confessional is read. But here I think a distinction must be made. One left by the confessor is without doubt matter of the seal, for it is as it were the revelation of another's confession; but one left by the penitent after received absolution is as it were a new narration of sins, which, whether it was voluntary or involuntary, does not beget the obligation of the seal. If it is not known who left it, the reader will have violated the seal, because he accepts the danger of reading what is truly enclosed by the seal. But the reason which is everywhere given, that the paper in which the sins of a completed confession are contained is as it were a permanent confession, if it was left in the confessional, otherwise if outside, seems to us to be a comparison rather than a reason, and to introduce an arbitrary distinction. Nor, if it is read before use for confession, will there be sin against the seal. For the privileged seal of sacramental confession cannot be extended to non-necessary means which precede confession. It would have to be said otherwise if in confession itself an uneducated person dictated his sins to someone. Cf. Lehmk., II, 597, who nevertheless says that the paper on which the penitent wrote his sins is protected by the seal if the writing is a necessary means for the penitent of making an integral confession. But the penitent is never compelled to make writing before confession. It is manifest that the things which are read on such a paper are protected by natural secrecy, which obliges under light or grave obligation, according as light and not defaming things, or, on the contrary, gravely defaming things, are thus illicitly known (cf. Noldin, III, 410; Gen., II, 384, VIII).

But letters by which absolution from reserved things is sought are protected by the seal.

What if someone confesses to a layman whom he thinks to be a priest? Many hold that that deceiving layman is obliged by the seal, because the penitent opened his conscience in order to confession. That he did this with the intention of confession is not to be doubted. But the order to confession is objectively none without a minister; nor does the intention of a sacrament cause that the sacrament is had. But the seal is destined to the sacrament, not merely to the intention of the sacrament. Therefore the case is different from that of one who hears what is narrated to another confessor in the true use of the sacrament (cf. d'Ann., III, 357).

But without doubt there falls under the seal what is accused to a priest lacking jurisdiction. For that confession may be completed by valid absolution, it is enough that that minister be furnished with jurisdiction.

N.B. 1. By force of c. 1757, §3, 2°, "priests are incapable of bearing testimony as regards all those things which have become known to them from sacramental confession, even if they have been released from the bond of the seal; indeed things heard by anyone and in any way on the occasion of confession cannot even be received as an indication of truth."

And in the civil forum also, the confessor can refuse testimony concerning every matter heard in confession: which for the most part, even if he has obtained permission from the penitent, it will be expedient to do.

The penitent himself is not held by the seal, but he is bound by a graver office of natural secrecy than others, when the matter requires that things said by the confessor be pressed down by silence. Therefore he sins mortally who, excused by no just cause, "betrays those things from which the honor of the confessor is notably injured" (cf. Ball.-Palm., V, 611).

— Object of the Seal. Under the seal fall:

1. all things which the penitent accused as his own sins or purposes of sinning, material or formal, whether rightly or erroneously he judged them such;

2. sins of an accomplice, whether prudently or imprudently detected, in the accusation of one's own sins;

3. denied absolution, without addition, since this virtually betrays a grave accusation. It would be otherwise if, following the custom of some region where it still survives, you were accustomed to hear all three times before absolution, and said: I did not give absolution because he was approaching for the first time;

4. the penance imposed, unless it was very slight, such as is customarily given for the smallest sins: three Ave or Gloria;

5. circumstances of sins, which clothe the narration of sins, unless they were said presuppositively, and it does not matter to the penitent that they be known. Thus if it was an occasion of sinning, very extrinsic to the sin itself: for example, a penitent, attracted by a strange spectacle, therefore omitted Mass. What strange thing happened in the street, you know from it, and you will be able to narrate it without violation of the seal. But you will not be able to narrate illegitimate birth which rendered him irregular and was related in confession. One must proceed cautiously in this matter, lest any suspicion of sin arise. Wherefore let it not be said that the matter was known from the confessional;

6. things which deservedly or undeservedly are added by the penitent so that he may perfect his accusation: thus even virtues and graces received, by which the penitent wishes to show himself fragile, ungrateful.

The common reason is this: because one's own sins are the principal object and the intrinsic end of the obligation of the seal; but full security about accusing sins secretly would not be given, if the obligation did not comprehend all things which the penitent deservedly or undeservedly judged could opportunely be added for manifesting his guilt.

— Sins committed in confession, for example vain glory conceived from very rare faults accused, from the congratulation of the confessor, of themselves are not matter of the seal. For they are not accused. Yet their revelation would contain an indirect violation of the seal: for example, anger revealed, blasphemies of the penitent inject suspicion of a correction on account of grave faults, which gave place to anger.

Still less of themselves are natural defects of the body matter: stench, stammering of the tongue, dullness of mind.

What about scruples and scrupulosity? Certainly, he will have sinned against the seal who said: Titius has these or those scruples, for these were accused as sins. On the contrary, he will not have violated the seal who said of a penitent: he is so good that he sees sins where they are not; for this redounds to the praise of the penitent, and does not betray morbid anxiety. Finally if you merely say that someone is scrupulous who from another source can be known as such, you reveal only a natural defect, nor are you the cause of suspicion or defamation. But if, as many are, he is known as scrupulous from confession alone, because he knows well how to conceal his anxieties, you make use of knowledge drawn from confession which brings a burden to the penitent: which is opposed to the seal. Berardi, Praxis, n. 4947, thinks that for the most part the seal is violated by him who reveals that a penitent is scrupulous.

That virtues and merits do not fall under the seal except by that reason which was recalled in n. 508 is clear of itself.

— The approach made for confessing sometimes will not be able to be narrated without grave sin, but properly, since the very knowledge of such approach precedes confession, it is not matter of the seal. Confession is a fact of which the confessor is a witness, but he does not receive the knowledge from the penitent.

— The condition of the seal is sacramental confession, that is, directed to absolution, at least begun, even if it remained imperfect.

But the manifestation of conscience for obtaining spiritual counsels does not suffice. Nor can any mutual pact or sworn promise, or quality of him to whom the matter is entrusted, press the obligation beyond the terms of a rigorous committed secret (cf. St. Th., Suppl. 3 p., q. 11 art. 2 ad 2).

Much less is a confession merely simulated or made for extorting alms, or for laying snares, protected by the seal. In the latter case, it will be best to rebuke and repel the shameless tempter in a loud voice. But if the hope of alms is an extrinsic end of a confession otherwise sincerely and rightly made, there is no doubt that this is enclosed by the seal.

Nor is protected by the seal the revelation which the penitent has made after the priest has clearly protested that he wishes to receive nothing sacramentally (Suarez, Paenit., d. 33, s. 2, n. 5).

— Obligation of the Seal. 1. Which acts are prohibited has already been declared from the thesis itself in n. 506, and it will be more evident from the examples to be added below.

2. The obligation of the sacramental seal is inviolable (c. 889), and that absolutely, that is, on account of no public or private good to be procured, or evil or damage to be averted, do there become lawful either direct revelation, with the penitent indicated, of a matter which falls under the seal, or the use of sacramental knowledge with danger of such revelation, or the use of the same knowledge with a burden to the penitent. Yet while the use of that knowledge with danger of revelation is simply prohibited, use without danger is not prohibited except with some true burden of such a penitent, or of penitents in general, as is explained in n. 519.

3. Direct revelation admits no smallness of matter. The reason is because every direct revelation contains a substantial perversion of the order divinely sanctioned: that of secret confession. For direct revelation is, from its very notion, an action against the secret.

There is added then the motive which is customarily brought forward: that the faithful would be not a little drawn away from the complete use of that sacrament if they knew that small sins could be narrated, especially since some are easily a cause of ignominy or ridicule, on account of which they would prefer a grave sin of theirs to become known.

4. When there is question of direct or indirect violation more strictly accepted, no use of probable opinion is permitted. The reason is because the sanctity of the royal safe-conduct demands a broad interpretation, but severe opinions which are probable show us how far a broad interpretation extends; and because probable opinion immediately leaves the danger of material violation, which here, on account of the superior order to which that law pertains, cannot be evacuated by a reflex principle. To use other words, here nothing is lawful except what immediately, directly, morally is established to be lawful.

For this reason neither in the present case is there made a derogation from the principles of probabilism, but we are outside the matter to which it is applied: lawful and unlawful. It is not lawful probably to say what a probable opinion says is against the seal, either directly, or by that indirect reason which generates danger of revelation of the sin of the penitent.

5. But in indirect violation, or when the danger of revelation or the burden is very slight and uncertain, it is commonly admitted that there is light matter.

— The seal, introduced for sanctioning the right and security of free secret confession, is constituted in the power of the penitent, who therefore can always effectively or validly give license of speaking outside confession concerning matters accused or narrated in confession, provided:

1. the license is formal. Interpretative license does not suffice, nor presumed license even about the present, on account of the danger of error or imprudence; and virtual or tacit license must be used cautiously. The case is commonly brought forward of a penitent who speaks with the confessor about sins accused in confession: it can happen rather easily that, with the at least tacit assent of the confessor, he wishes as it were to resume the confession protected by the seal. St. Alph., l. 6, n. 151, insinuates that this is rather to be presumed, appealing to Lugo, Paen., d. 23, n. 131 and 133, whose testimony, however, is ambiguous. I said with the assent of the confessor; for just as after the judgment has been completed the confessor cannot without the license of the penitent wish to perfect his judgment (Lugo, d. 33, n. 141), so, that he may resume confession, the penitent seems to need the assent of the confessor.

— Applications. 1. Conversation with the penitent about a preceding confession within a new confession, or immediately afterward, when the judgment is still morally judged to endure, is never opposed to the seal, because the matter is treated in the same sacramental forum, and the prudent administration itself of the sacrament not rarely demands the faculty of recalling former sins to the penitent. Besides, received usage so has it.

Nevertheless, without a reasonable cause, this is not to be done; and if there is only a slight cause for doing it, let the admonition be omitted if annoyance of the penitent is feared.

Conversation outside confession, without the permission of the penitent, is a prohibited use of sacramental knowledge.

— The confessor commits an indirect but strictly accepted violation of the seal: a) who, not from the very beginning of the confession, but when it has already been prolonged, says in a loud voice to a deaf penitent: "Return" or "How often?"; b) who, sitting in the confessional, rises and in a manner which bystanders can observe reads the table of reserved cases; c) who by a visible gesture, by a groan, manifests wonder or sadness; d) who, after hearing confession, immediately leaves the church, in no way solicitous about the penitent's Communion, which, before confession, seemed likely; e) who, of two penitents, for example two brothers, praises one alone, or says that by him only venial sins are brought (cf. d'Ann., III, 262). For he injects suspicion of serious matter, or of grave sin, or of indisposition.

— An indirect violation, broadly or strictly accepted (according as suspicion of grave sin is avoided for the penitent or not), is committed by the confessor who reveals sins heard in confession of some group or place, when some suspicion affects individual persons and therefore the penitent himself; when the reputation of the community itself or of the place is injured. Wherefore he sins who says that in such a monastery, or even by a religious of such an Order, a sin has been committed from whose nature the esteem of the monastery or Order is diminished. Much more, if he should say that there such a crime is frequent. For observe: although no one is ignorant that fragile persons occur everywhere, and that in the most fervent community there can be a traitor, much greater detriment happens to the community when a general and indefinite conjecture is strengthened by the most grave testimony of the confessor.

— Sometimes the quality of the person to whom a thing is said will cause the communication made to be burdensome and unpleasant to the penitent, or not. We always suppose that no suspicion of crime or sin falls upon the penitent himself.

For some more easily than others wonder that such or such things have happened, or, on account of the fault of a few, hold many more lightly suspected. Experience of men will teach an older confessor in no way to esteem the clergy or a monastery less because some have committed lustful acts, while, on the contrary, to learn this will not a little harm the reputation of priests or religious before a layman who did not even suspect that these things could happen in the sanctuary.

If two confessors who together receive confessions of the same part of the clergy, so that they have heard the same class of men, communicate to each other their judgment about their moral condition, neither will add anything to the knowledge of the other, so that that conversation, certainly never to be advised, can be immune from every violation of the seal; on the contrary, the same conversation held before those who have not heard those penitents would lessen the esteem of that clergy.

But even with the danger of violating the seal excluded, the very account of a certain equity and grateful charity sufficiently exhorts us not to abuse another's confidence for mingling conversations which are contrary to the order or family of our penitents.

— As to the defamation of a place: today in several regions there is so great a diversity of religion and morals, or of thinking and acting, that they seem to lack as it were their own name or reputation, so that the crime of one, even enormous, in no way infects the other inhabitants.

Yet it will be more shameful if you say that a hidden vice, a venereal disease, dominates there. Formerly, under this respect, they distinguished from larger places those which numbered fewer than three thousand inhabitants.

Nevertheless it is lawful from things heard in confession to take occasion for inveighing against vices which exist everywhere in some degree, for example lust. Yet to manifest hidden things with detriment of the place is wicked. Therefore practically it is never opportune that by the aid of confession the arguments of sermons be selected. For vices not hidden are known from elsewhere; hidden vices, however, are corrected not without danger.

By equal reason he who, as pastor or confessor, is questioned by a preacher about the vices which are especially to be remedied, should give information according to those things which he has learned by human knowledge, but should not give reports which he has acquired for himself only as the minister of Christ. He will act more prudently, he will avoid scruples and anxieties for himself, and he will obey more the direction of the Holy See (cf. Lehmk., II, 602; Ball.-Palm., V, 657).

— Even with every danger of revelation or detriment to reputation which the community or place would suffer excluded, nevertheless, outside confession, every use of the knowledge of confession with a burden to the penitent is prohibited (c. 890, §1).

And this absolutely, as is clear from the proposition prohibited by Innocent XI, through a decree of the Holy Office, November 18, 1682 (Denz., 1220). But the burden must be understood either as that which the penitent truly and formally experiences, or as that which he would connaturally experience if he had known that that use of knowledge had been made. Wherefore:

1. the Code itself, c. 890, §2, forbids every use which for external governance would be made of reports about sins had in confession, "both by Superiors existing at the time and by confessors who later shall have been appointed Superiors";

2. unless a faculty has been obtained, it will be against the seal to deny a vote to him whom from confession alone you know to be unworthy, or to remove the same from office; to dismiss a servant, a fellow boarder; to commit to someone a difficult and unpleasant task; to show a harsher face to the penitent, or because of things heard in confession (not strictly on account of a natural defect known otherwise than from the accusation of sins, for example stammering, an obscure manner of speaking) to decline him, and no longer admit him to making confession.

— Within confession the confessor can indeed impose those things which must be imposed on the penitent by every confessor, but nothing beyond. Wherefore he cannot order a thieving servant to leave his house.

When asked to hand over a certificate about confession having been made, the confessor can hand it over, and of itself should, to anyone who at least seriously began confession. Yet denial of the certificate will not be against the seal, except in rare external circumstances in which, on account of comparison with other penitents to whom it is given, suspicion is injected of denied absolution (cf. Ball.-Palm., V, n. 601-605).

— On the contrary, it will not be against the seal, not even indirectly, to do those things which, without any danger of revelation, cannot but be pleasing to the penitent, as to act with him more gently, mildly, benignly.

Lugo, Paen., d. 23, n. 308, thus solves the case, which he calls common, of a priest who from confession knows that snares are being prepared for him, so that he may be killed the following night, or that there is poison in the wine with which he must celebrate: he can flee or omit Mass without doubt, "when that action or omission would not show others the knowledge of the sin, nor bring any damage to the penitent which would render confession odious or burdensome: for then he could indeed flee under another pretext or omit the sacred rite." With the same conditions posited, he who from confession has learned the harms of his negligence could in an ordinary manner render himself more cautious in domestic administration.

Concerning the certainly metaphysical case of a confessor who confesses to another confessor, his penitent, that he is not a priest, and yet wishes to continue hearing confession, Lugo, in the same place, n. 105, has these words: if from the use of that knowledge there would result at least some indirect revelation or also some dishonor or inconvenience of my penitent, "I would be bound... to confess seriously to another, but to him only externally or certainly with the intention only conditionally of obtaining absolution, namely, if he is a priest."

You could also, with Tamburini as witness, c. 6, §2, provided the penitent himself is not impeded or feels inconvenience from it, place certain ordinary impediments to sins: for example, close a door, windows, through which you know someone is to go out for sinning. But, lest any wonder of the penitent arise, do not do these things unless the permission of the penitent has been obtained in the confession itself.

Can the confessor warn the Superior that he should watch? The circumstances will have to be weighed very prudently.

Wherefore it will be preferable to ask permission from the penitent, which he, if he is well disposed, will easily concede.

Cases of the penitent who perseveres in the will of committing a crime against the confessor can offer a different solution, if the circumstances certainly reveal that the penitent has come not for accusing sins but for tempting the confessor.

— Yet only the exterior use of sacramental knowledge is prohibited. For the Lord did not wish to impose on the confessor a function of unbearable weight. Wherefore internally to remember or think over the sins accused, to acquire experience of men and dexterity of acting from confessions heard, will be opposed to no account of the seal.

Nor is there use of knowledge where the knowledge is merely the occasion. Wherefore he will sin by curiosity, not by sacrilege, who, after hearing confessions, asks the sacristan about the name of the person who approached for confessing, unless from that a suspicion of some grave sin could easily arise.

Nor is the seal violated by saying what all know, or what by the very fact of approaching the confessor the penitent virtually betrays, as if you say that Peter accused his venial sins. But to define the venial sin accused (for example, his lies), or to indicate that they were grave or serious, would be a direct violation of the seal.

— An impatient, scrupulous, tedious manner of acting in the confession itself will not be against the seal, but it can be sinful by another reason, even gravely, if it renders the use of the sacrament odious, or has given cause or occasion of abandoning the sacraments.

— Canonical Sanctions. 1. We have already recalled above, n. 507, N.B., the prudent disposition by which c. 1757, §3, 2° makes confessors incapable of judicial testimony.

2. The confessor who shall have presumed directly to violate the sacramental seal is punished by excommunication reserved ipso facto most specially to the Apostolic See. He who shall have violated the seal only indirectly is liable to penalties ferendae sententiae, of suspension, incapacity, privations, indeed, in the graver case, of degradation itself (cc. 2369, §1 coll. with 2368, §1). I understand indirect violation as more strictly accepted. For the Code, c. 890, distinguishes the use of knowledge acquired from confession from the violation of the seal, of which c. 889 treats.

3. Rash, and therefore conscious, violation of the seal committed by other persons is said to be punished, according to the gravity of the guilt, by a penalty which can even be excommunication (c. 2369, §2).

— N.B. 1. The older authors must be read cautiously about this argument, since they less considered as contrary to the law of the seal the use of sacramental knowledge which, even if it should give no suspicion of sin, nevertheless brings a burden to the penitent. Thus St. Thomas himself, Suppl. 3 p., q. 11 art. 1 ad 3. Cf. St. Alph., l. 6, n. 656, 657.

2. Although we must be very cautious, nevertheless it is always necessary that our obedience remain reasonable. Wherefore we can give no place to a probable conjecture of the sin of some penitent; yet we ought not to avoid "all conjectures which clever and malicious men are accustomed to pursue" (cf. d'Ann., III, 362; Ball.-Palm., V, n. 672; St. Th., Quodlib., 5, art. 13).

3. Because every danger of reluctance of the penitent, or of wonder of hearers, which things in this matter must especially be attended to, is absent, Berardi, Praxis, 4959, seems to us deservedly not to disapprove him who, after hearing a public sinner in danger of death, in order to console the family, should say that the sick man confessed with great contrition and many tears, although these words prove indirectly that great sins were accused (cf. Tambur., Praxis exped. conj., c. 3, n. 15).

— 4. By the Instruction of June 9, 1915, which was promulgated by mission to the individual Ordinaries, and is founded on the presumption of danger and of easy scandal of the faithful, the Holy Office disapproved the manner of acting of those who, even with the danger of every revelation of the penitent excluded, narrate cases had in confession, even those which can serve for edification. For the faithful who hear these things come to less esteem for the sacramental seal; it is easy that among the bystanders someone may think that his own case is being recounted, so that the sacrament in some way becomes odious to him. Therefore the Sacred Congregation commands that the Ordinaries of places and Superiors restrain abuses of this kind; and for the future take care "that priests subject to them be taught never to touch anything pertaining to the matter of sacramental confession under any form and under no pretext, not even in passing, neither directly nor indirectly, neither in public nor in private conversations, especially on the occasion of missions and spiritual exercises."

Nevertheless necessary or useful consultations are not prohibited on this account.

Therefore to this seem to pertain these most grave warnings of the supreme Congregation: a) that priests abstain from those conversations by which, among themselves, at table, they mingle discussions about strange cases heard in confession, about sinners who had not confessed for many years, and this especially in missions, where there is an easier occasion of imprudence of this kind; b) that in sermons they report nothing as heard in confession, unless they expressly mention the permission given; c) that they not publicly narrate things which seem able to be known through confession alone, unless adding that the things were known to them by another way.

— I. The sacramental seal can be called a sign divinely imposed on secret confession, by which it is protected from every violation.

The obligation of the seal is the obligation, inviolable in every case, of keeping silent, even after the penitent has died, concerning things said in order to sacramental absolution, whose revelation or manifestation would render the sacrament burdensome or odious.

Direct violation is made by the open narration of a thing which is protected by the seal, with designation added of the person to whom the thing pertains.

Indirect violation is committed by a speech or narration which, made for another end, creates danger of manifestation of this kind: whether the matter is indicated without designation of the person, or the person without indication of the matter, but with danger lest the one from the other somehow be known or conjectured.

Every use also of sacramental knowledge is prohibited which either the penitent himself, or penitents in general, would bear unwillingly. Therefore the obligation of the seal extends beyond the obligation of preserving a secret. This use pertains to a certain account, more broadly accepted, of indirect violation.

An analogical violation of the seal is contained in the manifestation or revelation of a thing which indeed is not protected by the seal, when that manifestation brings a burden to the penitent or renders confession odious.

The obligation flows from divine natural law itself, consequent upon the institution of the sacrament of Penance and of secret confession: it pertains to religion and at the same time to justice.

II. By the seal are bound: the confessor, the Superior to whom one to be absolved, or one absolved, from a reserved thing presents himself, or from whom, either orally or in writing, permission of absolving is sought; an interpreter, or he who, within confession, writes the accusation for an uneducated person; one hearing by chance something closed by the seal; all to whom a thing has been wickedly revealed; a doctor who, with the permission of the penitent, is consulted; he who reads a written confession, at least while the penitent uses it for confessing.

The penitent is not held by the seal: yet he would sin mortally who by indiscreet words notably injured the honor or reputation of the confessor.

III. The object of the seal is: 1° all things which the penitent rightly or wrongly thought had to be accused, not excluding graces and virtues mentioned for showing fragility or for disclosing an ungrateful soul; 2° sins of an accomplice, accused at the same time in one's own accusation, directly or indirectly; 3° circumstances of sins, unless, extrinsic to the sin and said for supplying some useful prior knowledge of a non-secret thing, they can be manifested without any inconvenience of the penitent; 4° all indications of grave or special sin: as denied absolution, penance, unless it was very slight. This is said so that full security may be made firm for the penitent.

Thus sins themselves committed in confession, even if of themselves they are not the object of the seal, will have to be concealed lest indirect revelation be feared. Defects of the body are not matter of the seal; scruples easily can be, as if someone is known as scrupulous from confession alone.

Access for confessing is not matter of the seal, but sometimes it is protected by grave natural secrecy.

IV. The condition of the seal is confession made, or at least begun, in order to absolution.

V. Firmness. The obligation of the seal is absolutely inviolable, so that on account of no public or private good does revelation, whether direct or indirect, become lawful.

Nor does direct violation admit smallness of matter, since every such violation is against the divinely sanctioned order of secret confession. Nor, when there is question of direct or indirect violation (properly so called), is any use of probable opinion permitted; because, in this matter of a superior order, the danger of material violation cannot be evacuated by any reflex principle. In indirect revelation smallness of matter is admitted.

VI. Cessation. The obligation of the seal can be removed by permission of the penitent which is formal, free, not revoked. Permission can be indefinite or circumscribed to certain persons. Nor is use beyond the end for which it was conceded permitted. Yet the obligation fully ceases if the penitent repeats completely outside confession the things said in confession, or has declared that he wishes all things to be known as if outside confession.

Immediately after confession, or in another confession, the confessor speaking with the penitent about his confession does not violate the seal, but he could be guilty of imprudence.

VII. By revealing sins of a place or community, the confessor can indirectly violate the seal, if suspicion from that reaches the penitent himself. And if from that the reputation of the place or community is injured, the confessor has illicitly used knowledge from confession. The quality of the person to whom certain things are indicated can cause the communication to be or not to be burdensome or unpleasant to the penitent. It is lawful also to take occasion from confession for inveighing against vices which exist everywhere in some degree.

Use which cannot but be pleasing is not opposed to the seal, with danger of revelation excluded: as if you act more gently with the penitent.

Finally only the exterior use of sacramental knowledge is prohibited.

VIII. Sanction. The confessor who shall have presumed directly to violate the seal is punished with excommunication latae sententiae most specially reserved to the Holy See. Indirect violation, strictly accepted, renders the confessor liable to various penalties. Rash, and therefore conscious, violation effected by other persons is punished by a penalty which can even be excommunication.

Priests are incapable of judicial testimony as regards all things which they know from sacramental confession; indeed, not even as indications can any things be received which have been heard by anyone and in any way on the occasion of confession.

IX. The Holy Office, by the Instruction of June 9, 1915, wished to take care lest priests mingle conversations among themselves about strange cases, about conversions; lest they publicly report certain things as heard in confession, unless mention is made of the permission obtained; or seem publicly to narrate things which they have known from confession alone, unless they could indicate another source of knowledge.