point — Wouters, Manual of Moral Theology
Point III. On the Subject of the Sacramental Seal
Besides the confessor, who, as minister of the sacrament to which the seal is annexed, is obligated primarily and principally, secondarily and participatively "the interpreter also and all others to whom knowledge of confession has come in any way whatever are held by the obligation of preserving the sacramental seal" (can. 889, § 2). Except the case in which the penitent himself manifests the things confessed by himself. Under the name of confession comes every accusation to which, according to what was said in n. 430, the benefit of the sacramental seal belongs principally or participatively.
The reason for the rule stated is that "otherwise provision would not have been made sufficiently for the reverence of this sacrament, nor would hatred of confession have been sufficiently removed" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 648). The penitent, who is immune from the burden of the sacramental seal, transfers the knowledge of the confession made by himself even without that burden.
Therefore, besides the confessor, the following are bound:
I. The interpreter; for he, just as one hearing a confession, of whom we shall speak immediately, has received knowledge of the confession from the very confession of the penitent. The same must be said for the same reason about one who within confession writes the sins for the penitent (St. Alphonsus, VI, 647, 3 and 8).
II. One who has heard the confession of another, whether by chance or deliberately; one who deliberately hears, by that very act, violates the sacramental secret. Those are not held to the seal who have heard a confession which someone has freely made publicly; for such a manner of acting by its nature deprives confession of the benefit of the sacramental secret.
III. Those to whom a matter closed by the seal has been sacrilegiously or imprudently revealed; likewise one to whom the confessor, with the license of the penitent, for instance for the sake of seeking counsel, has revealed the matter, unless, what cannot be presumed, the license was granted indefinitely, so that the knowledge became extra-sacramental (St. Alphonsus, VI, 647, 5; 648).
IV. A Superior or another reading letters in which the faculty is sought of absolving someone from reserved sins, or something similar, is held by the sacramental seal as follows:
He is held if the letters were written by the confessor after confession had at least been begun, because the one reading received knowledge of the confession through the mediation of a confessor already bound to the sacramental seal.
Likewise he seems to be held if the letters were written by the confessor in order to a confession to be made, or by the penitent either before or after confession. The reason is that the liceity of using knowledge received in this way seems to redound to the detriment of confession, which cannot rightly be made without the faculty having been obtained.
V. One consulted about a confession to be made to him, that is, to the one consulted, probably is held by the sacramental seal, because the consultation of the one to whom, according to the intention of the one consulting, confession will be made is so closely united with the confession that will follow that the liceity of using knowledge received in this way seems to redound to the detriment of the sacrament. The opposite must be said if someone is consulted about confession to be made before another; authors more commonly adhere to this solution of the case (St. Alphonsus, VI, 649). The opposite also must be said if the penitent consults a priest, for instance about a special case, without thinking of confession to be made to him, and, after counsel has been received, makes confession. But let the confessor beware of scandal.
VI. One reading a paper on which the penitent wrote the confession:
Of himself he is not held by the sacramental seal, because a paper of this kind is neither a confession nor a necessary means of making confession, so that the liceity of using knowledge of confession received in this way does not redound to the detriment of confession; in other words, it renders not confession but only the writing odious (St. Alphonsus, VI, 650).
He is held by the sacramental seal: 1. who reads the paper while the confessor reads it, since in that case by the writing itself sins are manifested here and now to the confessor, and he is rightly said to have drawn knowledge of the confession from the confession of the penitent; 2. who reads the paper while the penitent reads the confession from it, because, at least morally speaking, he comes to knowledge of the confession by means of confession; 3. probably, who reads the paper left behind by the confessor after confession, because in the case it seems possible to say that, through the mediation of the confessor, he received knowledge of the confession, and therefore he is held by the seal, as those assigned under III; 4. who reads the paper in the case in which it was the prescribed means of making confession, as can happen in a mute person (n. 326). The reason is that the liceity of using knowledge of confession drawn from a necessary means of confessing would redound to the detriment of confession (St. Alphonsus, cited place).
VII. One reading letters written by the confessor to the penitent, in which matters closed by the seal are treated, is held by the sacramental seal, because he receives knowledge of the confession from the confessor (cf. n. III). But one who reads letters sent by the penitent to the confessor, in which confessed matter is treated, is not held by the sacramental seal, whether this is done for the sake of completing confession or is not done for that end. The reason is that the said letters are in no way confession, nor does that so-called complement of confession have anything of confession properly so called. Moreover, the liceity of using knowledge drawn from those letters does not render confession odious, but only that so-called complement added outside a new confession.