point — Wouters, Manual of Moral Theology
Point I. On the Obligation of the Sacramental Seal
I. Existence of the obligation. This is clear first from the fact that Christ, by instituting and imposing confession, must be judged to have imposed on the confessor an obligation without which the reception of confession would be morally impossible. But the obligation of preserving the seal is such an obligation. Add that between the penitent and the confessor there intervenes a tacit contract; to this there is added the obligation of the confessor to preserve the right of the penitent to reputation. Finally, the Church confirms the obligation of the seal and decrees that both direct and indirect violation are prohibited. Thus canon 889, § 1, says: the sacramental seal is inviolable; wherefore let the confessor diligently beware lest by word or sign, or in any other way and for any cause whatever, he betray the sinner in any manner (direct violation).1 And canon 890 says: the use by the confessor of knowledge acquired from confession, with burden to the penitent, is altogether prohibited, even any danger of revelation being excluded (§ 1).2 Both Superiors existing for the time and confessors who afterward have been appointed Superiors can in no way use for external governance the knowledge which they have had concerning sins in confession (§ 2; St. Alphonsus, VI, 635).
Corollary I. The obligation of the seal is of natural law, insofar as it flows from the tacit contract and from the right of the penitent to reputation; of divine-natural law, as it is said,3 insofar as it follows upon the sacrament; and of ecclesiastical law, insofar as it is confirmed by the Church (cf. St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 11, a. 1, ad 2).
Corollary II. The obligation of the seal exists even in doubt: 1. whether some object falls under the seal; 2. whether something is known by sacramental knowledge or otherwise; 3. whether something to be said or done is opposed to the seal. The reason is that otherwise provision would not be made sufficiently for the security of the faithful who confess (St. Alphonsus, VI, 633, 637).
1 Thus also the ancient law. In the Decree of Gratian (c. 2, dist. 6, De poenit.) it is declared: "Let the priest before all things beware lest he recount to anyone the sins of those who confess to him. For if he has done this, let him be deposed and go about all the days of his life as an ignominious pilgrim." Lateran IV: "Let the priest beware altogether lest by word or sign or in any other way he betray the sinner in any manner. But if he needs more prudent counsel, let him cautiously seek it without any expression of the person, since we decree that one who has presumed to reveal a sin disclosed to him in the penitential judgment is not only to be deposed from priestly office, but also to be thrust into a strict monastery for doing perpetual penance."
2 Likewise Clement VIII, May 26, 1593; and the proposition condemned by decree of the Holy Office, November 18, 1682 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1220).
3 There are those who think that such an obligation, which excludes exception, flows from the positive law of Christ.
II. The proximate source of the obligation. The obligation of the seal arises from every confession such that use of the knowledge received from it would turn the faithful away from confession. If the confession is sacramental, the benefit of the seal belongs to it principally; if it is not sacramental, it belongs to it participatively. Hence it arises:
From confession made in order to the power of the keys to a priest who can and wills to discharge the office of judge, or to use jurisdiction. Such a confession is certainly sacramental.
From confession made in order to the power of the keys: 1. to a priest who enjoys jurisdiction but does not will to use it; 2. to a priest who lacks jurisdiction; 3. to one who is not a priest but is regarded as a priest by the penitent; whether the aforesaid confessions are called sacramental or are not called such. The reason is that the use of knowledge received from a confession of this kind, if it were licit, would at least redound to the detriment of the sacrament, or would turn the faithful away from confession in some measure. But if it is asked whether the said confessions are sacramental, I respond that the first, which is made to a priest who does not will to use jurisdiction merely internally, seems sacramental; as regards the later ones, a reason for seriously doubting is taken from the fact that the objective relation of confession to the sentence to be rendered seems to be lacking.
It is disputed whether it arises from confession made to one who is neither a priest nor regarded as a priest by the penitent; for instance if someone thought that a layman could absolve in a case of necessity. Moreover, the negative answer seems to be given, because the use of knowledge drawn from such a confession does not turn one away from confession to be made before a priest.
For the rest, the obligation of the sacramental seal arises from a confession both perfect and only begun, both valid and invalid. It is also the same whether absolution is granted, denied, or deferred.
Corollary I. The obligation of the sacramental seal does not arise from a confession made without the will of receiving the sacrament, but only with the intention of speaking with the confessor, or of mocking or seducing him (St. Alphonsus, VI, 636); nor from a confession made to one who is known by the penitent to lack jurisdiction, because then there is also lacking an accusation made in order to the power of the keys.
Corollary II. The fact that someone manifests something outside confession "under the seal of confession," as they say, and another receives it in that way, cannot effect that something be covered by the seal of sacramental confession (St. Alphonsus, VI, 636). Nevertheless, "someone ought not readily receive something in this way" (St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 11, a. 2).
III. Quality of the obligation. The obligation of the seal is threefold, namely: 1. of religion, insofar as it arises from the signification of the sacrament, and the law has been issued from reverence for the sacrament; 2. of justice from the tacit contract between confessor and penitent; 3. of another species of justice, namely that which commands preserving the reputation of one's neighbor (St. Alphonsus, VI, 635).
IV. Gravity of the obligation.
The obligation of the law, insofar as from religion it prohibits direct violation of the seal, or revelation of the sin together with revelation of the sinner, is grave from its whole genus. The reason is that, if small matter were admitted, it would be gravely opposed to the end of the sacrament, since the faithful would be turned away from confession of venial sins, indeed even of mortal sins, fearing that the confessor might take as light what was mortal.
The obligation of the law, insofar as it prohibits indirect violation of the seal, is grave from its genus, but in such a way that sufficiently grave matter for constituting grave sin is easily present. Hence:
Under grave obligation there is prohibited: 1. manifestation of a thing closed by the seal together with grave or middling danger of betraying the sinner; 2. use of sacramental knowledge which involves a notable or middling burden of the penitent.
Under light obligation there is prohibited: 1. manifestation of a thing closed by the seal together with danger altogether light of betraying the sinner; 2. use of sacramental knowledge which involves a burden of the penitent altogether light.
There are not prohibited: 1. manifestation of a thing closed by the seal together with a danger of betraying the sinner which does not deserve to be noted; 2. use of sacramental knowledge which involves a burden which is not worthy of note.
V. Cessation of the obligation. The obligation of the sacramental seal, at least insofar as it forbids direct violation, never ceases without the license of the penitent. The penitent, however, can grant license. It is said:
The obligation of the sacramental seal, at least insofar as it forbids direct violation, never ceases. This is clear from tradition. The reason seems to be that, on account of the spiritual and common good of the faithful, sacramental knowledge, by the intention and institution of Christ, has been ordered to the sacramental forum alone, or to the good of the penitent, and as such has been altogether withdrawn from the common intercourse of men (St. Alphonsus, VI, 634). It is disputed, however, whether for protecting the seal it is licit to posit an act which, independently of the law of the seal, is intrinsically evil; for instance, whether it is licit for a married priest to use marriage which he certainly knows from sacramental confession to be invalid by natural law. The matter is doubtful to me; while the doubt stands, however, one may act according to one's pleasure.
Without the license of the penitent; and that license freely, expressly, and certainly granted, and not revoked. Presumed license is judged not to suffice, because confessors can be deceived in this matter, so that the sufficiency of presumed license would render confession odious. For the rest, license can be granted explicitly and implicitly, for instance by the very fact that the penitent begins to speak outside confession about a matter of itself closed by the seal. Nevertheless, let the confessor beware lest he extend the concession beyond the intention of the penitent. Besides this, the penitent can revoke the granted license according to his or her pleasure. Finally, note that license of this kind is not to be sought except for a grave cause, and only from those whose consent can certainly be expected to be altogether free (St. Alphonsus, cited place).
The penitent can grant license because the seal has been imposed in his or her favor, and the penitent can renounce that favor.
Corollary I. One who has known something by both sacramental and extra-sacramental knowledge licitly uses the extra-sacramental knowledge; nevertheless let him proceed prudently and avoid scandal (St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 11, a. 5; St. Alphonsus, VI, 638, 4).
Corollary II. One who is questioned about a matter closed by the seal should of himself repel the questioner. But if otherwise he cannot with sufficient certainty repel suspicion against the penitent, let him answer, even with an oath, that he knows nothing. "A man," says St. Thomas, "is not brought in as a witness except as man, and therefore without injury to conscience he can swear that he does not know what he knows only as God" (St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 11, a. 1, ad 3). And thus he can say or swear, even if "he has been asked to answer not as man but especially as a minister of God," indeed even if "he is additionally asked to answer without equivocation" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 646).