Point IV. Corollaries from the Doctrine Handed Down

I. The sacramental seal is violated:

1. By one who either reproves the penitent in a loud voice or questions the penitent about sins.

2. By one who speaks about the sin of someone with another confessor, even if the penitent confessed that same sin to both.

3. By one who, for example, says about a notorious homicide that he confessed the homicide.

4. By one who, after hearing the confessions of a few, says that he heard such a sin.

5. By one who praises one penitent before the rest whom he heard by saying that the penitent confessed only venial sins (St. Alphonsus, Homo Apostolicus, tr. 16, n. 156).

6. By one who says that he heard a grave sin in such a convent; for then individual members of that convent, and therefore also the penitent, suffer detriment. If someone said the same about such an Order, it depends on the circumstances whether a grave, light, or almost no burden is created, and therefore whether there is grave, light, or no violation of the seal. Namely, it must be considered: 1. whether the Order is numerous; 2. whether it is notoriously relaxed or not; 3. before whom that is said; 4. whether suspicion falls upon the inhabitants of a few houses (cf. St. Alphonsus, VI, 654, doubt 2).

7. By one who without the permission of the penitent speaks with the penitent outside confession about things heard in confession.

8. By one who after confession looks upon the penitent with stern eyes, does not speak to him as he had previously been accustomed, and so forth. Likewise by one who, on account of things heard in confession, would dismiss a servant, or take keys away from him, or remove money from a chest lest he steal it. Likewise by one who, on account of things known from confession, would deny a vote to someone (St. Alphonsus, VI, 657). Likewise by one who, on account of sins declared in an earlier confession or on account of a defect of disposition then revealed, would refuse to receive someone's confession (St. Alphonsus, VI, 659).

Question 1. Whether one violates the seal who from the confession of the penitent has known that snares are being laid for him, and without the license of the penitent uses the knowledge received for his own defense.

Response. Affirmatively, if, for example, accomplices could suspect that that sin had been accused by the penitent, or if some other burden would come to the penitent from it. For the liceity of directing oneself in this way, without the license of the penitent, from the knowledge of confession would turn the faithful away from confession (St. Alphonsus, VI, 659). If the penitent threatens to inflict death on the confessor at an opportune time unless he is absolved, the confessor can avert the danger of death, because by doing this he neither betrays the sin of the penitent in any way, as is supposed, nor does the liceity of acting in this way render confession itself odious.

Question 2. Whether one violates the sacramental seal who says that in some place such a vice is spreading.

Response 1. He does not violate the seal if the vice is notorious and the place is sufficiently large, for instance about 3,000 persons; or, if the matter concerns a very infamous vice, such as sodomy or bestiality, 6,000-7,000 Catholics. The reason is that the burden which from this comes to penitents does not deserve to be noted.

Response 2. He violates the seal if the vice is occult; likewise if the vice is notorious but the place is sufficiently narrow, for instance less than 3,000; or, if the matter concerns a very infamous vice, less than 6,000-7,000 Catholics (St. Alphonsus, VI, 654, doubt 1; Homo Apostolicus, tr. 16, n. 158).

If, however, the discussion concerns a notorious vice, it can easily happen that the burden is only altogether light, or even such that it does not deserve to be noted, so that there is only venial fault or even no fault.

Note. As has already been indicated above, one who does not expressly say that such a vice flourishes in some place, but on account of things heard in confession more vigorously attacks certain not unaccustomed vices, for instance drunkenness, lust, dishonest courtships, does not create a burden worthy of note, and therefore acts licitly.

Question 3. Whether one violates the sacramental seal who says that such a person confessed to him.

Response. Of itself, negatively. If, however, by a manifestation of this kind, for instance if the penitent came secretly, the confessor would introduce suspicion of grave sin, he would not only sin gravely, but also seems to violate the sacramental seal, insofar as only from the confession actually made did he know the fact of confession, and relying on that knowledge he signified the said fact to others, and by that very signification introduced suspicion of grave sin (St. Alphonsus, VI, 638). If in the case posited the confessor merely said that such a person had asked that he might make confession, he would violate a natural secret, but not the sacramental seal.

Question 4. Whether one violates the seal who says that such a person was absolved by him.

Response. Negatively, but let the confessor abstain from this, lest a burden be created for the penitent concerning whom he cannot testify to that fact.

In certificates of confession, only mention of confession should be made. But let him refer to the penitent a sacristan asking whether someone wishes to receive Communion (St. Alphonsus, VI, 639).

Question 5. Whether one violates the seal who denies a certificate of confession to an indisposed penitent.

Response 1. The affirmative answer must be given: 1. if it is denied to one asking for it outside confession; 2. if it is denied within confession in those circumstances in which it is customary to give it, or it is demanded by Superiors or by the pastor. The reason is that the denial, although it has place in confession, nevertheless produces an effect after confession, or creates a burden for the penitent (St. Alphonsus, VI, 639).

Response 2. The negative answer must be given if the certificate is sought outside the aforesaid cases; likewise, as is clear, if the confession was fictitiously made.

Objection 1, against response I. By denying the certificate the confessor says nothing, but only does not approve that confession by positive testimony, to which he is not bound.¹

Response. It is the same whether the burden follows for the penitent from a positive act or from the omission of an act. If from omission, the confessor is bound to a positive act; just as, for example, he is bound to continue conversations with the penitent with whom he had previously been accustomed to converse, and cannot in the future abstain from them on account of the confession heard.

Objection 2. Nor does it stand in the way that St. Alphonsus objects that he is held to avoiding indirect revelation, which cannot be avoided when the certificate is denied. For by the same right it would have to be said that the seal is violated by one who denies absolution; for often, when the penitent is seen to abstain from Holy Communion, for example in colleges, scarcely any other reason for his abstinence can occur to the mind of those looking on than absolution denied.²

Response. I deny the parity; since denial of absolution is not, as denial of a certificate is, the cause of the burden. The cause of the burden in the case of absolution denied is the defect of disposition in the penitent, which defect prevents him from receiving Holy Communion.

Question 6. Whether one violates the seal who from sins alone heard in confession takes occasion to ask who that penitent was.

Response 1. Affirmatively, as is clear, if from the question instituted suspicion is introduced against the penitent.

Response 2. With suspicion to be introduced excluded, it likewise seems that the affirmative answer must be given, because inquiry of this kind, relying on sacramental knowledge, seems to render confession odious.

¹ Thus some adversaries.

² Thus some adversaries.

II. The sacramental seal is not violated:

1. By one who remembers the sins accused; nor by one who prays for the penitent or acts more kindly toward him (St. Alphonsus, VI, 657).

2. By one who consults books and more learned persons, provided the danger that the penitent be recognized is absent.

3. By one who better fulfills the offices of his duty, for instance by questioning and instructing penitents more prudently, by watching over subjects more diligently; nevertheless let him proceed cautiously, lest the penitent be burdened or implicitly reproved (St. Thomas, in IV, dist. 21, q. 3, art. 1, sol. 1, ad 1; St. Alphonsus, cited place).

4. By one who in a sermon treats not unaccustomed matter, or more strongly turns hearers away from some not unaccustomed occasion (St. Alphonsus, VI, 654, doubt 1).

5. By one who praises the conscience of the penitent, provided an evil suspicion against others is not introduced (St. Alphonsus, VI, 638, 1).

6. By one who after absolution in the confessional speaks with the penitent about things heard in confession; nor by one who in confession speaks about those things which were declared in a previous confession (St. Alphonsus, VI, 652, 653).

7. By one who before others relates sins and so forth accused by the penitent, without naming the person and with danger of recognizing that person excluded (St. Alphonsus, VI, 638, 3). Here, however, carefully observe that a manner of acting of this kind, if it is done rashly, although the sacramental seal is not violated, is altogether to be disapproved, as follows from the Instruction of the Holy Office to the Ordinaries of places and Moderators of Religious institutes;¹ concerning this Instruction certain things must be noted. Moreover:

a) The praised Instruction, "so that even the appearance and suspicion of injury inflicted on the sacrament may be avoided, so that the pious ears of hearers may not be offended and mistrust against the sacrament may not be stirred up," 1. disapproves the manner of acting of those "who, although all things which can in any way betray the person of the penitent have been kept back, do not fear rashly to speak, whether in private conversations or in public sermons to the people, as they say, for the edification of hearers, about things submitted in sacramental confession to the power of the keys"; 2. commands the Ordinaries of places and Superiors of Religious institutes, with their conscience gravely burdened, "that if they detect any abuses of this kind anywhere, they strive to restrain them promptly and efficaciously; and that in the future, both in theological schools and in conferences on cases of morals, as they call them, and in public and private addresses and exhortations to the clergy, they take care that the priests subject to them be diligently instructed never to dare, especially on the occasion of sacred Missions and Spiritual Exercises, to touch upon anything pertaining to the matter of sacramental confession, under whatever form and under whatever pretext, not even in passing, and neither directly nor indirectly, except in the case of necessary consultation to be proposed according to the rules handed down by approved authors, in their public or private discourses; and that in the examinations for their habilitation to receive confessions they be examined particularly on this matter"; 3. "trusts that none of the Confessors will contravene prescriptions of this kind; but if the contrary happens, let the aforesaid Ordinaries and Superiors gravely admonish transgressors, strike recidivists with fitting penalties, and in graver cases refer the matter as soon as possible to this Supreme Sacred Tribunal."

b) The Instruction certainly commands the Ordinaries of places and Superiors to remove abuses, if they exist. But it is disputed: 1. whether it imposes a true precept on confessors, or merely provides and inculcates a directive norm; 2. whether or not it had the force of law; 3. whether, if it had that force, it retained it. Namely, the aforesaid Instruction was never promulgated in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis; it lacks the approval of the Supreme Pontiff in specific form, indeed even in common form, which nevertheless according to the Constitution Sapienti Consilio² is required in order that Congregations may issue law. There is added that the Code did not retain the dispositions of the Instruction, nor does it refer to it in the sources, and that ecclesiastical Authority afterward was in no way accustomed to urge the said dispositions. These difficulties, although they can be weakened and partly solved, nevertheless bring it about that the Instruction can practically, at least as regards confessors, be held as a merely directive norm.

Note. As incapable of bearing testimony there are excluded "priests, as regards all those things which became 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" (can. 1757, § 3, 2).

¹ June 19, 1915 (Monitor Ecclesiasticus 1917, p. 199).

² June 29, 1908.