Duties of the Confessor After Confession

The Duties of the Confessor After Confession.—(a) Per se, or by reason of his office itself, the confessor is held to guard inviolate the secret of the confessional—that is, he may not disclose, or use to the penitent’s disadvantage, any information received from sacramental confession. This duty is a grave one imposed by natural law (since there is a quasi-contract that the confessor will treat the penitent’s confession as confidential), by divine law (since Christ, in willing that confession be used, implicitly willed that it be so conducted as not to become a thing odious, scandalous and harmful), and by church law (for Canons 889, 890, 1757, 2369 strictly forbid revelations or use of sacramental knowledge and decree severe penalties against transgressors). Since God wipes out from remembrance the sins He has pardoned, the confessor, being God’s representative, must treat what he has heard as not known to him. The obligation of the seal is so strict that no one may dispense from it, that neither Probabilism nor epieikeia may be applied to it, and that no exception is allowed unless the penitent himself freely, unmistakably and for a serious reason gives permission for it to the confessor.

(b) Per accidens, or by reason of a mistake committed by him (e.g., absolution mistakenly refused or invalidly given, erroneous notion about the gravity of a sin imparted or not corrected, restitution imposed where not due or not imposed where due), a confessor is held to see that the mistake is corrected and that the penitent or a third party is spared or rescued from the harm which will follow from the mistake. The obligation is one of justice in those cases where there is a violation of implicit agreement (e.g., absolution unreasonably withheld), or damage positively and culpably caused (e.g., erroneous advice about the gravity of a sin or about the duty of restitution); it is one of charity in other cases where the confessor can without undue inconvenience assist the spiritual or temporal need of the penitent or of another (e.g., penitent’s misunderstanding about his duty of restitution which the confessor failed to clear up). The duty of repairing mistakes is grave when there is grave damage (e.g., invalid absolution of mortal sins) and grave guilt was contracted by the mistake (e.g., if the invalidity was voluntary) or will be contracted by refusal to prevent the consequences of the mistake (e.g., if the invalidity has been discovered, and one knows that the penitent will die unabsolved, if one does not rectify the error). The duty is light if there is light damage (e.g., invalid absolution of free matter, or of necessary matter confessed by a person who will go to the Sacraments soon again), or light culpability (e.g., failure to question about the species or number of sins, or to impose a penance, when the failure is due to distraction or forgetfulness).

There is a twofold obligation of the Confessor after confession: 1. per accidens, as regards repairing defects committed; 2. per se, as regards keeping the seal.

643. Principles. - I. An error concerning the validity of the Sacrament committed with grave fault or grave negligence, supposing grave harm to the penitent ¹, must be repaired even with grave inconvenience to the Confessor. The reason is that the Confessor, from his office and from the quasi-contract entered into with the penitent, is bound to administer the Sacrament rightly to him. But if the error is inculpable or lightly culpable, the Confessor is indeed bound from justice ², but with lesser inconvenience. - St. Ligorius, no. 619.

¹ Grave harm or danger to the penitent would be present if, for example, you absolved altogether invalidly or in no manner a sick person near death who would for that reason incur danger to eternal salvation; or also, as St. Alphonsus says (no. 619), if the penitent were in grave danger of not confessing again, for example, while he undertakes a long sea journey. But this grave harm to the penitent would be absent when, even if the Confessor absolves beyond his faculties from reserved censures and sins, or imparted absolution altogether invalidly or in no manner, nevertheless, in the first case the reserved sins would also have been indirectly remitted to the penitent in good faith, as we suppose, while in the other cases a remedy would not be lacking either in the reception of the Eucharist, which per accidens, according to the common doctrine with St. Thomas, would confer first grace upon a man having attrition, or in a subsequent confession with another priest, by which even the preceding sins would be indirectly remitted, no differently than happens with sins omitted through forgetfulness.

But when that grave danger threatens the penitent, and accordingly the Confessor must admonish the penitent in order to repair the error, there are some who say generally that permission must be sought from him, because according to the common opinion the seal forbids the priest to speak, even with the penitent himself after a completed confession, about matters heard in it, etc.; and if the penitent refuses permission, nothing remains to be done by the Confessor. But St. Alphonsus (no. 622) deservedly excepts the case of absolution imparted either in no manner or invalidly. The reason is that, when the Confessor merely says, for example, that he did not absolve him, surely neither shame is cast upon the penitent nor does any reproach of sin intervene, and accordingly the reason why the penitent would be unwilling and the confession would thereby be rendered burdensome is absent. These are the causes why a priest, spontaneously mixing conversation with the penitent about things heard from him in Confession, is judged to act against the seal. For the rest, in the case the Confessor would not be bound to acknowledge that he culpably erred; it would suffice to say that an error intervened, or even more simply that it is necessary for him to absolve him again. But if the penitent, not yet admonished, returns to the same Confessor, it will not even be necessary to admonish him concerning the error; for if he is excited to sorrow for all the sins previously confessed also, the present absolution will be directly terminated also to the preceding sins.

² St. Alphonsus, whom the Author alleges in this place, prefers that a Confessor who has erred inculpably is bound only from charity, unless he is the pastor of the penitent. But, as seems truer to others, the priest indeed hears the confession from charity; nevertheless, after the confession has been heard, he is bound from justice to complete the Sacrament, because he is bound from his office, however spontaneously undertaken, and from a certain quasi-contract. This condition of the Confessor remains the same even if he has erred without fault. Therefore, according as the error was culpable or inculpable, the obligation of the Confessor will differ, not because it presses now from justice and now from charity, but only as the obligation of keeping another unharmed differs according as harm is inflicted through a formal injury or a merely material one; or also as the obligation of restoring a thing unjustly taken away differs from the obligation of seeking the owner of a thing which someone found by chance. For the latter indeed undertakes the care of the thing from charity, but after this care has been undertaken he is bound, not from charity but from justice, to guard the thing and, as the circumstances require, to seek its owner.

** The VV., about to defend the holy Doctor Alphonsus, construct nearly eight columns (pp. 621-624) against this Note. Thus, therefore, they argue (p. 623): If someone gratuitously received a deposit from mere charity, he nevertheless is bound from justice to preserve and guard the thing with that diligence with which diligent men are accustomed to preserve and guard things of this kind.... But if, after the aforesaid diligence has been employed, the thing perishes or deteriorates without any fault, he is bound to nothing at all from the title of justice. And concerning the example proposed in the Note they add: After he has received the thing found, though from mere charity, into his deposit and care, he is bound from justice not only to seek the owner, as the circumstances require, but also to guard the thing with ordinary diligence; but if the thing perishes or deteriorates without fault on his part, and afterward the owner claims it, he is bound to nothing. And from these things they conclude: Therefore, there is no obligation from the title of justice for a Confessor who has erred inculpably to repair the harm. But if the Confessor is nevertheless bound, he is bound only from charity, and indeed from that general law of charity by which we are obliged to assist our neighbor and to avert temporal and spiritual harms from him insofar as this can be done without grave inconvenience.

Reply. I deny the Supposition and accordingly the parity; and from this I deny the Consequent and the Consequence. The supposition is that through the error of the Confessor the matter has been brought into such a state that it cannot be repaired through those means to which the same Confessor is bound from his office, just as provision cannot be made through that diligence to which a depositary is bound for a thing deposited which has already perished without the fault of the depositary. But that this is manifestly false appears from the very state of the question. For if the error of the Confessor is supposed irreparable, it is wrongly disputed whether he is bound to correct it from justice or only from charity. Moreover, St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 619) affirms that the Confessor is bound from charity to amend his error. Therefore, the question does not concern a thing reduced to such a condition that it can be compared with a deposited thing which has already perished.

In its own manner, a somewhat more fitting comparison would be with a depositary who through an inculpable error perhaps sold or gave away the thing deposited, or placed it in a place in which he afterward observed that it would perhaps perish or suffer harm. Let the question then be posed: Would this man be bound from charity alone, or rather from justice, to recover the thing perhaps sold or given away, if it can be done, or to remove the thing from the place in which it would suffer harm? And still more clearly to our matter: Would the diligence to which the depositary is bound from justice require that, in the hypothesis, he take care to recover the thing handed over to another, or remove it from a harmful place, or would we call this an office of mere charity? Let it therefore be concluded that the VV. deduced a false consequence from an incongruous parity.

Nor, indeed, was St. Alphonsus led by such a parity or argument when he asserted that in the hypothesis the Confessor is obliged from charity alone to admonish the penitent concerning an error committed by himself. The holy Doctor (loc. cit.) seems to have used this reasoning: the obligation in the case does not press under grave inconvenience; therefore the Confessor is bound from charity alone. Yet none of the Doctors whom St. Alphonsus alleges there reasons thus. For all derive the obligation of admonishing from the office of the Confessor, however much they add that in the hypothesis it does not press with great detriment or inconvenience. De Lugo explains the matter well (On Penance, disputation 22, no. 62), whom St. Alphonsus also alleges:

Everyone (De Lugo says) is bound FROM JUSTICE not only not to inflict evil directly and purposely upon his neighbor, but also to take care, insofar as he CONVENIENTLY CAN, that harm contrary to the right of his neighbor does not arise from his action; for example, if you inadvertently set fire to another's house, you are bound from justice, as soon as you notice it, to extinguish the fire if you can conveniently do so, although another who did not set the fire would be bound not from justice but from charity to extinguish it. For although the action was inculpable, it was nevertheless yours, and you are bound to take care that your neighbor suffer no detriment in his own goods from your action, if you conveniently can; for this obligation is lesser than that other obligation of not harming positively, and therefore you are not bound to this unless you can conveniently prevent it. Likewise, if in good faith you defamed someone, thinking that the crime which you had heard about him was true, you ought afterward, if you conveniently can, once the error is known, to repair his reputation and extinguish the fire of reputation which you had inculpably kindled. But the same De Lugo (loc. cit.) had excellently premised this principle, namely, when the error happens without grave fault: Then, he says, according to the rule established above it must be said that he ought, if he conveniently can, to admonish the penitent concerning the error; OTHERWISE THE IGNORANCE OF THE PENITENT WILL NOW BEGIN TO BE IMPUTED TO HIM.

II. An error concerning the accidents of the Sacrament is not to be repaired outside confession if the Confessor conducted himself in this matter only negatively, even culpably. The reason is that the Confessor is not bound to procure the integrity of the Sacrament and the utility of the penitent except in confession, as a spiritual physician and minister of the Sacrament. But an error is to be repaired even outside confession if it was committed positively and with grave fault, because by natural law everyone must remove the cause of evil which he positively and voluntarily placed ³. Nevertheless, the permission of the penitent must be sought; if the penitent denies it, the Confessor is bound to nothing further. - St. Ligorius, no. 620.

³ That the Author seems to require for the obligation of admonishing outside confession that the error was committed with grave fault appears indeed to be against the more common opinion of the Doctors. They (see De Lugo, On Penance, disputation 22, no. 63, and St. Alphonsus, book 6, no. 620) concede only that one who has erred to the harm of the penitent without fault or with light fault is excused from giving the admonition by a lighter cause than if the error proceeded from grave fault. In this matter, there are moreover to be weighed, on the one hand, the inconvenience and detriment of the Confessor in admonishing, as well as whatever burden there may be to the penitent in renewing a discourse about the matter of confession, and, on the other hand, the harm or danger to be feared from the error. This can be lighter, if, for example, the Confessor erroneously said that the penitent is not bound to fast or to hear Mass and things of this kind; or graver, if, for example, the Confessor so deceived the penitent that he remains in a proximate occasion, or does not remove a scandal, or contracts an invalid marriage, etc.

III. There will be no obligation to admonish outside confession if the defect concerns the integrity of confession, because this error can scarcely, or not even scarcely, harm the penitent or others ⁴. - Thus commonly.

⁴ Some distinction seems to be employed here. For it is one thing if the Confessor merely did not take care that the confession be integral; it is another, as De Lugo says (On Penance, disputation 22, no. 73), if he was the positive cause why the penitent did not confess integrally, saying, for example, that it was not necessary to confess the species or number of sins. In the first case, the doctrine of the Author avails; concerning this see Suarez (On Penance, disputation 32, section 6, no. 8). In the other case, those things which were said in the preceding note rather have place. Yet there are two things which seem to diminish this obligation of admonishing outside confession. One is that in the following confession another Confessor will ask both the species and the number and will instruct the penitent who perhaps hesitates on account of the error with which he had been imbued, and accordingly will correct the error; and from this the necessity of admonition ceases. The other is the fact that in the case an admonition, from the nature of the matter, which necessarily concerns grave sins, introduces a discourse about them and thereby brings great shame to the penitent; and for this reason his offense can deservedly be feared. Hence a fortiori that which St. Alphonsus (no. 619) had observed concerning the omission of an admonition in the case of invalid absolution avails: for in our case more than in that case this offense and burden to the penitent arise of themselves.

644. Questions. - QUESTION 1. To what is a Confessor bound who improperly released a penitent from making restitution, or, on the contrary, obliged him to it?

Reply 1. If from malice, vincible ignorance, or grave negligence he improperly released the penitent, he is bound to correct the error; and if he does not correct it, or if the penitent, who otherwise would have made restitution, has meanwhile become unable to make restitution, the Confessor himself is bound to make restitution in his place, because he violated the right of the creditor, namely, by impeding the restitution owed to him.

Reply 2. Likewise, if from malice or grave ignorance or negligence he obliged the penitent to undue restitution, he is bound from justice to retract the error; and if the penitent has already made restitution, he is bound to compensate him for the harm.

Reply 3. If inculpably or from light negligence he improperly obliged the penitent or released him from the obligation, he is bound from justice to correct the error, but not with so grave an inconvenience. The reason is that, on the one hand, everyone is bound from justice to prevent his own action, even an inculpable one, from causing another a harm which he can easily prevent; and, on the other hand, an obligation with grave inconvenience does not ordinarily arise from light fault or merely material fault. - St. Ligorius, no. 621.

645. • QUESTION 2. To what is a Confessor bound who omitted to admonish a penitent concerning restitution to be made?

Reply 1. If he foresees the harm, he is bound to admonish the penitent concerning the obligation with some inconvenience, if no fault or only light fault intervened, at least by reason of charity; but with greater inconvenience if he sinned gravely in the omission. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, no. 624.

Reply 2. More probably, he is not bound to make restitution, even if he sinned gravely by omitting the admonition. The reason is that the Confessor is not bound from justice to prevent harm to the one to whom restitution is owed. Recall the things said in the Treatise on Justice and Right, where negative cooperators are discussed, no. 691. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

646. • QUESTION 3. Is one bound to restitution who from only light fault released a penitent from the obligation of making restitution, if he afterward neglects to admonish him when he can easily do so?

Reply. Yes. The reason is that, although the Confessor released the penitent from restitution without at least grave fault, nevertheless, since his counsel continues to influence the harm of the creditor, once the error is known he is bound from justice to remove the cause of the harm, if he can easily do so. - St. Ligorius, no. 622, and others commonly.

QUESTION 4. Can a Confessor, without the permission of the penitent, speak with him outside confession about a defect committed in confession?

Reply. No, if the penitent has already departed. The reason is that this admonition outside confession is burdensome to the penitent. Moreover, after absolution the judgment is complete; nor does it matter that the admonition is made to repair a defect of the same confession. - St. Ligorius, no. 622; Lacroix, no. 1776, etc. Nevertheless, if the error of the Confessor brings the penitent into danger of salvation, for example, if he had not absolved him, he could, even without permission being sought, disclose his error abruptly by saying, for example, that he had not absolved him. Surely in this way neither is the seal broken nor can a reasonable offense of the penitent be present. - St. Ligorius, no. 619.

439. Two duties are incumbent upon the confessor after confession: one per se, namely, to preserve the seal; the other per accidens, namely, to correct defects and errors, if any have occurred.

The obligation of the confessor after confessions have been received is twofold: - one, and this per accidens, is occupied in correcting errors committed; - the other, in preserving the sacramental seal.

The errors which escape the confessor can be occupied: 1. about the value of the Sacrament, e.g. if he did not absolve, or if he absolved without jurisdiction; 2. about the integrity of confession, e.g. if he doubts whether he omitted questions that should have been asked; 3. about the obligations of the penitent, as if he left him in an occasion of sin, if he did not oblige him to due restitution, or obliged him to an undue one.

Wherefore the following things are established:

1856. Principles. I. An error about the VALUE OF THE SACRAMENT, committed with grave fault of the confessor and with grave DAMAGE of the penitent, must be repaired by the confessor, even with his own GRAVE inconvenience. The reason is that, although the confessor from charity alone took upon himself the burden of hearing the confession of the penitent, nevertheless, after he has heard it, he is bound from office, and from a quasi-contract, to administer the Sacrament to him rightly. Hence, if he administers it invalidly, he is an unjust damager.¹

It was said, 1. with grave fault; because from light fault there does not arise a grave obligation of repairing damage (cf. n. 950, qu. 1 and 3). - Exceptions: 1. If the confessor is a pastor; for he, from another title, i.e. by reason of the stipend received, is bound to avert spiritual damage from his subjects; 2. if the penitent were in grave danger of dying in the state of mortal sin, i.e. if he were in the article of death, or in probable danger of not confessing any more; for then the obligation of charity urges.

It was said, 2. with grave damage, namely a persevering damage, which needs reparation. - Hence, if the penitent afterwards has confessed to another priest, or if he has received the Eucharist or Extreme Unction, he need not necessarily be admonished concerning the error, since he is supposed already to have been morally certainly justified.

1857. II. An error about the INTEGRITY OF CONFESSION must be repaired in a diverse mode, according as namely the confessor bore himself NEGATIVELY or POSITIVELY. For:

1. If he bore himself NEGATIVELY, whether from forgetfulness, or even from culpable negligence, e.g. by not questioning (when he should have done so) concerning the species and number of sins, he is not bound to repair the error outside confession. And the same must be said if he omitted imposing a penance or handing down salutary admonitions and remedies. The reason is that the obligation of procuring the integrity of the Sacrament directly affects the penitent, not the confessor, who therefore is not censured to be the efficacious cause of the omission, nor is he bound to repair it, except per accidens, in another confession, as spiritual physician and minister of the Sacrament.²

2. If POSITIVELY, and with grave fault, he erred, e.g. by inducing the penitent not to explain otherwise the number or species of sins, he is bound, with the previous permission of the penitent, to repair the error, even outside confession; for, by natural right, each one must remove a cause of evil which he positively and voluntarily posited (cf. n. 513). Understand this, however, provided he can do it without his own grave damage and scandal; for just as grave damage excuses the penitent, so also it excuses the confessor from the integrity of confession.³

1858. III. An error about the OBLIGATIONS OF THE PENITENT, tending to his damage or that of a third party, must be repaired by the confessor, even with his own grave inconvenience, if he POSITIVELY and with GRAVE fault induced the penitent into error. But otherwise, if he induced him with no fault, or with fault only light, or if he bore himself negatively. - The reason for the first assertion is that by his counsel or doctrine, in reality, he existed as an unjust and efficacious cause of the damage (cf. n. 980 and 981). - As regards the latter, if indeed he positively, but inculpably, or with light fault, drew the penitent into a damaging error, he is bound (as he who inculpably moved fire to another's house) to impede the damage with some inconvenience to himself, but not with grave inconvenience. And the same must be said if the confessor, not having been questioned, bore himself negatively; for in this case he cannot be called an efficacious cause of the damage, and therefore he is not bound from justice, and with grave inconvenience, to repair the damage; nevertheless he is bound from charity, and with some inconvenience to himself, namely one proportioned to the gravity of the damage brought on, and to his negligence or fault, as is clear from the things said at n. 989.⁴

From these things it is inferred: the confessor is sometimes bound to make RESTITUTION in the place of the penitent, namely in the two following cases:

1. If he positively, and with his own grave fault, exempted him from the obligation of restitution, and afterwards either never recalled the error committed by himself, or recalled it later, namely at a time when the faculty or will of making restitution was now lacking to the penitent, because previously he could have made restitution and would have willed to do so.

2. If indeed inculpably, or without grave fault, he positively exempted him from restitution, and afterwards, when he could have admonished him concerning the error and could conveniently have done so, from grave negligence he did not admonish him. And the same must be held if the confessor culpably obliged the penitent to pay what he did not owe, and he has now paid it; for then, on account of the same reasons, he is bound to repair his damage.⁵

1859. Questions. Q. 1. Whether the confessor can, without the permission of the penitent, OUTSIDE CONFESSION, speak with him concerning a defect committed in confession?

Resp. Distinguish. 1. If the judgment has been completed through the conferring of absolution, he cannot, without his permission, speak concerning the error; because such an admonition would be a reproach of sin, which would render confession odious. - 2. If the confessor did not absolve, either because he forgot to give absolution, or because he pronounced it badly, he can admonish the penitent concerning this defect, even outside confession, because then no reproach of sin intervenes.⁶

Q. 2. Whether the confessor ought, if the same penitent RETURNS to confession, to ADMONISH him concerning the defect committed in the preceding confession?

Resp. In the affirmative, with light or grave inconvenience, according to the principles established above; for then the confessor must again, from office, question and teach the penitent, and therefore correct errors committed by himself.

1860. The SACRAMENTAL SEAL, or the seal of confession, induces an obligation of keeping silent, even before the penitent himself, both about sins and about all other things manifested in confession, in order to absolution.⁷

Principles. I. There is a most strict obligation of preserving the seal of confession inviolably. It is clear: 1. From natural right, which commands that it be preserved both by title of fidelity, and by title of justice, and by title of religion; whence it happens that the violation of it includes in itself a threefold sin: namely the sin of sacrilege against the Sacrament, the sin of infidelity against an onerous, although tacit, promise of preserving a secret, and the sin of detraction, if the delicts of the penitent were not public. - 2. From positive divine right, at least implicit; for from the institution of Christ confession ought to be secret; therefore by that very fact the obligation of preserving the seal was imposed by Christ on confessors. - 3. From ecclesiastical right, as is clear from several places of Canon Law, especially from the Fourth Lateran Council, c. 31, Omnis utriusque sexus, where it is said: "Let him beware altogether (the confessor), lest by word or sign, or in any other way, he betray the sinner in any respect. But if he should need more prudent counsel, let him cautiously seek it without any expression of the person." - Nevertheless, the confessor is not bound in this matter to avoid every empty suspicion, but only a probable one.⁸

We said a most strict obligation; and indeed in truth: 1. It is most strict, because it does not admit smallness of matter, for the reason that matter, even the very lightest, includes the whole rationale of the precept. Exception: if the danger of revelation is little probable; in which case, if a revelation should follow, it should be censured to follow from a fortuitous event. - 2. It is most strict, because it never admits any exception; for if it ever admitted any, penitents would always have to fear lest such a sin would be that cause for licitly breaking the seal; therefore the Sacrament would be rendered odious. Hence the obligation of the seal urges, although, with it remaining inviolate, greater damage would follow to the penitent (thus from the decree of the Holy Office issued on November 18, 1682, by mandate of Innocent XI); although the manifestation would serve for exterior governance, without the penitent noticing in any way (thus from the decree of Clement VIII, issued May 26, 1593); although it is a question of the revelation of one venial sin; although otherwise the confession cannot be made entire (e.g. if the penitent cannot be questioned without the voice being raised); although it is a question of avoiding one's own death or that of others, indeed although the safety of the whole kingdom should be endangered.⁹ - 3. It is most strict, because it forbids using, in this matter, a probable opinion; for this would be to the prejudice of a certain right which another possesses, etc. Wherefore the confessor is held to the seal, even in doubt whether something was said by the penitent in order to confession.¹⁰ - 4. It is most strict, because it perseveres in force even after the death of the penitent; for each one, even after death, wishes to be held good.¹¹ But if anyone should teach or believe that this seal does not oblige gravely, he would have to be DENOUNCED, as suspected of heresy.¹²

1861. II. The obligation of the seal arises from EVERY and ONLY SACRAMENTAL confession, namely one which is made with the intention of accusing oneself and obtaining absolution; because this, and this alone, includes the rationale of the precept. - It is said, 1. from every sacramental confession; whether already completed, or begun, valid or invalid and sacrilegious; whether absolution is given, or not. - 2. From only sacramental confession; wherefore there is no obligation of the seal if someone approaches the confessor with the intention of deceiving him, mocking him, drawing him into sin, or extorting something from him. - But if someone approaches him not for this end, that he institute confession, but that he make complaints, or that he ask counsel, the priest indeed ought to keep silent about the things heard, not however from the obligation of the sacramental seal, but from the obligation of natural secrecy alone. Similarly, if someone outside confession should commit a secret matter to a priest, with this formula added, "under the seal of confession," the obligation would not exceed the obligation of a committed secret.¹³

With these things having been premised in general, the following must be weighed: 1. Who are held to the seal; 2. what things fall under the seal; 3. when the seal is not injured; when it is injured.

1862. Principle. All are held to the seal, to whom NOTICE of sacramental confession has COME in any way whatever, whether from the confession itself, or from means ordered to it. The reason is that, if Christ had not bound the obligation of the seal to confession, however heard, He would not have sufficiently provided for penitents; for confession would be very odious if penitents knew that their sins revealed in confession could ever be revealed by someone. Besides, a thing passes with its own burden; therefore that notice also passes with the obligation of the seal.

Therefore, there is held: 1. The confessor, as is clear. - 2. A simple priest, who pretends himself to be a confessor; indeed also a layman, who was held to be in place of a priest. - 3. A Superior, to whom one absolved from a reserved case presents himself by law, or from whom permission of absolving from a reserved case is sought. - 4. An interpreter, or one who, asked by another, for instance by an uneducated person, etc., wrote his confession. - 5. One who furtively, or by chance, although inculpably, hears something. Thus bystanders are held to the seal, in whose presence confession is made from necessity, as in shipwreck, in battle. But otherwise, if the penitent, for his own confusion, wishes to confess publicly. - 6. All to whom something from things heard in confession has been revealed sacrilegiously or imprudently; hence concerning this they cannot even converse among themselves. - 7. A doctor or another, who is consulted with the permission of the penitent; for although the notice of the sin is directly manifested to him for the instruction of the confessor, nevertheless indirectly it is manifested also in order to absolution to be imparted and the Sacrament to be perfected.¹⁴

1863. Questions. Q. 1. Whether one is held to the seal who READS A PAPER in which the penitent WROTE the confession?

Resp. 1. Of itself he is not held; the reason is that that writing is not confession, but preparation for confession; nevertheless it induces the obligation of natural secrecy, and indeed under grave sin, unless it is a question of the very lightest faults.

Resp. 2. Per accidens he is held to the seal, if such a paper necessarily pertains to confession: e.g. 1) if a mute person confesses by writing to a confessor present, and by chance another reads it; because then the reader in reality draws the notice of sins from his actual confession; - 2) if someone by letter should seek from a Superior permission for a reserved case, and another should read it; - 3) and the same must be said if someone reads a paper relating not to a confession already made, but prepared for making confession to a priest; because that presentation is a certain begun confession.¹⁵

Q. 2. Whether a doctor consulted by the penitent himself is held to the seal?

Resp. 1. Affirmatively, if he is consulted about confession to be made before that very one, and if the penitent manifests his faults to him; because this consultation is to be held as a begun confession.

Resp. 2. Negatively (although there is an obligation of natural secrecy), if it is a question of confession to be made before another. The reason is that the obligation of the seal arises from sacramental confession alone, in which the penitent actually manifests his sins in order to obtaining absolution. Thus more probably, against some who reject this opinion for this reason, because, they say, such a revelation would render confession odious; but this reason is not of great moment; for, as St. Alphonsus excellently observes, not confession itself, through a revelation of this kind, would be rendered odious, but the consultation.¹⁶

Q. 3. Whether the PENITENT is held to the sacramental seal with respect to the confessor?

Resp. Negatively, "because the seal was instituted only in favor of penitents, not of confessors." Nevertheless the penitent is held to natural secrecy concerning those things whose publication could bring either damage to the confessor, or injury or contempt to the Sacrament. "But to me," says St. Alphonsus, "penitents seem to be held to this secrecy (although natural) more strictly than others; for others voluntarily provide counsel, but the confessor is bound to provide it from office... Hence the penitent is more rigorously held to beware lest damage come to the confessor on account of counsel given to himself."¹⁷

1864. Principle. The matter of the seal is constituted by all and each of those things HEARD IN CONFESSION, whose revelation would render the Sacrament of Penance ODIOUS to the faithful, and whatever the penitent REASONABLY does not wish to be manifested by the confessor.

Hence, UNDER THE SEAL there fall: 1. All the sins of the penitent, both mortal and venial, both present and past, both occult and manifest, provided they were declared in a truly sacramental confession. - 2. The circumstances of sins, even those explained after absolution, whenever they were disclosed in order to confession: e.g. if one illegitimate by birth has received Sacred Orders. - 3. The objects of sins: e.g. if someone confesses that he hates his mother because of her adultery, or because she was unwilling to correct his brother concerning theft: the adultery and the theft fall under the seal. - 4. The sins of an accomplice, even imprudently manifested in confession. - 5. The penance imposed, unless it is minimal, namely that which usually is imposed for the very lightest venial sin. - 6. All things which would expose the penitent to mockeries and would turn the faithful away from the Sacrament, such as natural defects, ignorance, incapacity, etc. - 7. Virtues and revelations, when they are disclosed to the confessor in order to manifest some defect committed, or one's own ingratitude toward God; but otherwise, if they are manifested so that the state of the soul may become known to the confessor.¹⁸ Hence, in a Cause of Beatification, attestations of the confessor are judged licit and useful, although not necessary.¹⁹

1865. Questions. Q. 1. Whether the SCRUPLES or SCRUPULOSITY of the penitent fall under the seal?

Resp. Affirmatively, if the manifestation would redound to a burden for him, as would happen if such a thing were said of a Prelate, of a confessor, and the like. - But otherwise, if it were said of some secular persons, for whom this would rather redound to praise.²⁰

Q. 2. Whether sins fall under the seal which the penitent committed IN THE CONFESSION ITSELF, for instance sins of impatience, of insult against the confessor, or against others?

Resp. Negatively of themselves, because the penitent does not confess such faults, but commits them while the confessor sees. Ordinarily, however, they fall under the seal per accidens, because they involve danger of revelation; for they provide an indication from which it can be conjectured with a certain probability that the confessor either was unwilling to absolve, or noticed something in the penitent on account of some graver fault.²¹

1866. The seal IS NOT INJURED: 1. If the confessor says in general that the confession was about light matter; otherwise, if he said that it was about several venial sins, or named some fault, although minimal, in particular.

2. If he praises the conscience of the penitent. But let him beware lest he give suspicion of the bad conscience of others, who perhaps at the same time confessed to him.

3. If he says that someone confessed before him, provided the penitent by word or deed, e.g. by approaching secretly, did not signify that he wished to keep his confession occult. Likewise, if he says that he absolved such a one, provided this does not cede to the prejudice of others, about whom he does not say the same.²²

4. If he says in general that he heard such a sin in confession, yet in such a way that those hearing can by no means come to knowledge of the penitent. - Nevertheless it is always more advisable to abstain from utterances of this kind, because it can happen that the hearers (especially if they are also confessors) come to knowledge, or at least suspicion, of the penitent.

5. If he uses notice which he had outside confession. But here also one must proceed cautiously, because thereafter, where there is no revelation, there can be danger of scandal, since bystanders easily believe that matters are revealed from confession heard.²³

6. If he uses the notice of confession where no revelation intervenes, nor is any burden brought upon the penitent.²⁴ Hence the confessor can well, from that notice, reform his own morals, pray for the penitent, conduct himself more benignly toward him, consult books and wise persons, temper rigor, direct himself in questions, guard himself from dangers and occasions of spiritual or temporal damage, instruct others or admonish them in general to take care for themselves, abstain from the celebration of Mass in a polluted church, etc., provided that (as was said) every danger of revelation or burden is absent.²⁵

7. If he manifests something with the previous permission of the penitent. For since the seal is in favor of the penitent, nothing prevents him from yielding his right. Hence St. Thomas:²⁶ "The penitent can bring it about that what the priest knew only as God, he may know also as man: which he does when he licenses him to speak. And therefore if he speaks, he does not break the seal of confession."

But concerning this PERMISSION OF THE PENITENT several things occur to be noted, namely:

1. The permission must be: 1) "formal and express; for presumed, tacit, interpretative, and virtual permission (even for the good of the penitent himself) does not suffice;" - 2) free and altogether spontaneous, not arisen from force, injury, deceit, or importunate prayers, or reverential fear; - 3) not revoked; for the penitent, according to his own pleasure, can revoke it even without cause. The reason for these things is that it is a question of a very odious matter, in which permission is not wont to be given so easily. Wherefore, it is to be sought by the confessor only when a grave necessity is urging, and then only when it can be presumed with certainty that the penitent will consent willingly. For it is ordinarily clear that a priest who outside the tribunal recalls his sins to the penitent is gravely troublesome to him, and renders confession odious to him.²⁷

2. Having obtained such permission, the confessor can also correct or admonish others, e.g. the accomplice of the penitent, etc. Ordinarily, however, it is not expedient that he ask such permission; it will be better if he induces the penitent to open this to him outside confession; indeed, it will be better still that the penitent himself bring the matter to another who can bring a remedy to the evil.²⁸

3. In fact, permission is given when the penitent himself outside confession begins to speak about sins declared.

4. Within the confession itself, no permission is required. The reason is that it pertains to the office of the confessor to make mention of past things, whenever it is judged to profit the penitent, e.g. to reprove him concerning relapse. - And the same is licit immediately after absolution has been given, because the sacramental judgment is censured still to endure morally.²⁹

1867. Questions. Q. 1. What ought the confessor to do when he detects that the penitent is DEAF or HARD OF HEARING?

Resp. St. Alphonsus:³⁰ 1. "If he notices the deafness of the penitent around the beginning of confession, let him impose on him that he return at another time and suitable place, where the confessor can speak freely, lest others hear.

2. "But if he notices this in the progress of confession, and after several due questions the penitent does not respond rightly, then it is not licit for the confessor, in a loud voice, to impose on the penitent that he return, in such a way that those standing around would hear this; because great suspicion would be given to them that he had confessed grave matter. - And therefore, in such a case, I think the counsel is that the confessor, understanding the sins in the better mode in which he can, [impose a light penance and] absolve: absolutely indeed, if the penitent is probably censured disposed; but under condition, if there is doubt about the disposition."

Q. 2. What ought the confessor to do if he NEEDS counsel?

Resp. If danger of revelation is present, either let him propose the case in a fitting mode, e.g. as fictitious; or let him ask from the penitent permission of using sacramental knowledge; or let him have recourse to some learned counselor, to whom the person of the penitent is altogether unknown; or let him remit the penitent to another confessor, etc. - But if he can use none of these means, let him trust in God, and, with prayer and study diligently applied, let him solve the difficulty himself, in the better mode in which he can.³¹

Q. 3. In what way ought the confessor to RESPOND to INDISCREET questions?

Resp. 1. If he is questioned concerning sins heard, he can rightly affirm, even with an oath, that he has heard nothing; for concerning all things which he received in confession, he has no communicable knowledge. Thus commonly with St. Thomas, who says:³² "He can swear that he does not know what he knows only as God." And this is valid even if he should be asked to respond without equivocation.

Resp. 2. If he is questioned whether he gave absolution or not, let him respond: I have discharged my office; or better, by way of rebuke: Are such questions to be asked? - But if, absolution having been denied, he were asked by a cleric whether the penitent is going to communicate, let him respond: Ask him whether he wishes to communicate. And in like manner parents, teachers, masters, etc., are to be referred to the penitents themselves, when they inquire whether absolution has been imparted to sons or subjects.³³

Q. 4. In what way must one act with an INDISPOSED person asking for a CERTIFICATE of confession or of absolution?

Resp. 1. If he asks for a certificate of CONFESSION outside confession, it cannot be denied to him, whenever he truly instituted sacramental confession; because through such a denial it would be revealed indirectly that the penitent had not confessed rightly. But otherwise, if he had simulated confession, e.g. for avoiding punishment or infamy, for snatching a certificate; for in this case the obligation of the seal would not exist, and it would be asserted mendaciously that such a one had confessed. But it is never licit to lie.

Resp. 2. If he asks for the same certificate in the confession itself, or before he withdraws from the confessional, it must be conceded whenever he truly has confessed at least one sin, and a certificate is wont to be given, or is required by the Superiors of the penitent, e.g. before matrimony, in paschal time, in Colleges, etc. For the same reason is valid as above. - But otherwise, if he asks for it compelled by no necessity; because, in such a case, denial brings no burden, or danger of revelation.

Resp. 3. If one not absolved asks for a certificate of ABSOLUTION, the confessor cannot write it, because it would be to lie, as is clear. - "If however certificates were already printed, in which (imprudently indeed) it is asserted that absolution has been imparted, it seems probable, as some more recent authors say, that it can be handed to those confessed but not absolved, at least if they ask publicly; because then the confessor utters or writes no lie, but only performs a material act, by handing such a certificate."³⁴ This opinion, since it favors the seal, can be held in practice.

1868. The seal IS INJURED directly or indirectly: directly, if something is openly and expressly manifested which falls under the seal; indirectly, if the confessor so bears or speaks himself that others can know or suspect a sin or defect of the penitent, or of others, or any other things known through confession, from which, whether to the penitent himself or to others, shame, annoyance, dishonor, damage, or any burden whatever would come.¹ But if the sayings or deeds of the confessor after confession are held indifferently by penitents, the seal is not injured. In doubt whether danger of revelation or of offense is present, the safer part is to be held, i.e. the seal is to be preserved, as we admonished above (n. 1860).² These things having been premised, we say:

I. By WORDS the confessor indirectly violates the seal: - 1. Who addresses the penitent in so loud a voice that those standing around understand, from his responses or admonitions, what the penitent has confessed. - 2. Who says that he denied absolution to someone, or that he had not yet absolved him, or that he imposed on him a grave penance. - 3. Who, out of several penitents joined together among themselves by close relationship or kinship, as if they are brothers, greatly praises one or two, no word having been made about the others. - 4. If, in narrating some fact, he mentions such circumstances that the penitent can easily be recognized from them. - 5. Who admonishes the parents or Superiors of the penitent that they watch especially in such a place and time. - 6. Who speaks with another confessor concerning a sin which the penitent confessed to both. - 7. Who, after hearing the confessions of few persons, says that he heard such a sin, although he conceals the person; for each one suffers something of suspicion against himself from that revelation. - 8. Who says that he heard a grave sin in such a monastery, even if he does not name the person; or if he says that the Superior of the monastery does not watch sufficiently over his subjects; because such words stain the reputation of the whole Community. A fortiori, he would violate the seal who said that grave sins are committed in that Convent. - Likewise, if he said this concerning an Order of stricter observance, or concerning a Religion little spread, which namely would number fewer than three thousand members. Otherwise, if he should speak thus concerning some Religious in general, or concerning an Order much spread and notoriously relaxed, every danger of suspicion concerning some monastery in particular nevertheless being excluded.³ - 9. A preacher who, in a Community or in a village or small town, i.e. below 3000 persons, names vices in species (although public) known to him only from confessions, by saying e.g. "here blasphemy reigns; here many are thieves, onanists, etc."; or in some monastery: "here sacrileges are committed." Likewise, if, speaking concerning a town of inhabitants below 6000, he should name a sin bringing infamy, e.g. by saying: "In this place sodomy, adultery, etc., runs rampant." Otherwise, if he should speak thus concerning a larger city, or if he should rise up against sins already known to himself and to others from elsewhere.⁴

II. By DEEDS the confessor breaks the seal: 1. Who denies a certificate of confession to those asking for it outside confession; or within confession, if the certificate is required by Superiors, or is wont to be conceded to all (cf. n. 1867, q. 4). - 2. Who after confession looks at the penitent with hostile eyes, speaks with him less amicably than before, or by his manner of acting manifests that he remembers his sins, is actually thinking about them, and makes him of less account than before. - 3. Who, without another sufficient cause, shrinks from hearing a penitent whom, from a preceding confession, he knows to be troublesome, scrupulous, indisposed, etc.; yet otherwise, if the penitent were commonly known as too prolix in confessing, and at the same time of good conscience.⁵

1869. Questions. Q. 1. Whether a priest who from confession knows that snares are being prepared for him can FLEE, or in another way take precautions against DAMAGE?

Resp. In the affirmative, if from such a caution the sin confessed is by no means manifested to others, nor any burden brought upon the penitent. Otherwise, if from the circumstances it could be conjectured that the flight occurred because of notice received in confession; for flight would be an indirect revelation of the sin confessed. And although the confessor should simulate flight from some pretext, nevertheless he would always inject some reasonable suspicion of the sin confessed.⁶

Q. 2. Whether it is licit for SUPERIORS to use the notice of confession FOR EXTERNAL GOVERNMENT, if in no way it appears that they direct themselves from that notice?

Resp. Negatively, because this would evidently cede to the burden of penitents, who, if they knew that this were licit, certainly would be drawn back from confession. It is clear from the decree of Clement VIII, May 26, 1593, § 4,⁷ and the decree of the Holy Office issued by the authority of Innocent XI on November 18, 1682, by which the opposite opinion was expressly proscribed.⁸

Hence: 1. It is never licit to use the notice of confession, for removing an unworthy person from office, for denying him the suffrage of election, for denying Sacraments to a sinner, for taking keys away from a servant, etc. But the Superior can, indeed ought (as any other confessor), against an evil which becomes known to him in the forum of penance, to bring a remedy in the same forum, by obliging the penitent, if the common good requires this, to external manifestation.

2. It is not expedient to consult confessors when it is a question of someone to be promoted; for from this, as Croix well notes,⁹ many inconveniences and dangers are born. And generally Confessors ought to testify only to the frequency of the Sacraments.

1° In Confession; 2° after Confession.

The obligation of the confessor after Confession is twofold: 1° per accidens, as to repairing defects committed; 2° per se, as to preserving the Seal.

1487. Principles. - I. An error gravely culpable and gravely harmful to the penitent himself, by the confessor, from justice, and therefore also with damage relatively grave to himself, speaking per se, must be repaired.

I say: 1° gravely culpable, because an inculpable or lightly culpable error must be repaired from charity alone, and therefore per se with only light inconvenience.

I say: 2° from justice, as is clear from what was said n. 746. For the error, as in the principle is supposed, was an efficacious and theologically gravely culpable cause of damage; it was moreover an unjust cause, even in him who heard the penitent's Confession from charity alone, because to the obligation of charity there was added the obligation of justice, namely by force of the quasi-contract concerning the Sacrament to be administered rightly, by which contract the confessor is bound by the very fact that he undertakes the Confession of anyone.

I say: 3° speaking per se: for the case is to be excepted in which he could not repair the error without injuring the seal, for example because he would gravely offend the penitent by renewing discourse about the Confession; likewise the case of a penitent invalidly absolved who afterward either had confessed to another or had received the Most Holy Eucharist, because in either case he is presumed with moral certainty to have been justified (n. 1208. q. 2°), and the damage was repaired.

II. An error harming some third party is to be repaired according to the rules concerning cooperation in damage: namely from justice, if the confessor positively, by command or counsel, cooperated in the damage of the third party (n. 1438. q. 1°. R. 1°. 3°); but from charity alone, if negatively, by not admonishing concerning restitution to be made, since, as confessor, he is bound toward that third party by no bond of office or quasi-contract (n. 774. q. 1°).

III. An error, even gravely culpable, concerning the integrity of Confession is committed either negatively (when the penitent was not questioned concerning species or number, though he ought to have been questioned concerning them), or positively (by inducing him not to explain them).

In the former case it is not to be corrected outside Confession: for the obligation of confessing integrally directly affects not the confessor, but the penitent; hence, although the former is held to question the latter within Confession concerning species and number, nevertheless when the judgment has been finished this obligation ceases in the confessor.

In the latter case a gravely culpable error must be corrected even outside Confession: for by natural law everyone is held to remove the cause why another violates a grave precept, namely of integral Confession. Except if the error cannot be repaired without scandal or grave damage to the confessor; for these things excuse the penitent from integrity, and therefore also the confessor. "But if the error shall not have been gravely culpable, a much slighter cause will excuse from correcting it outside Confession, and this cause will never not be present, since the confessor can never admonish the penitent concerning the error admitted without inconvenience and shame."

1488. Questions. - Quaer. 1° To what is a confessor held who unduly released a penitent from making restitution, or on the contrary obliged him to it?

Resp. 1° If with grave fault he unduly released the penitent, he is held to correct the error; but if he does not correct it, or the penitent, who otherwise would have made restitution, meanwhile has become unable to make restitution, the confessor himself is held to restore in his place, because he violated the right of the creditor, namely by impeding the restitution due to him. I said: who otherwise would have made restitution. For if, although admonished, he would not have made restitution before the inability, neither will the confessor be bound.

Resp. 2° If with grave fault he obliged the penitent to undue restitution, he is held from justice to retract the error; and, if the penitent has already restored, he is held to make good the damage to him.

Resp. 3° If inculpably or from light negligence he unduly obliged or released the penitent from the obligation, he is held from justice to correct the error, not however with so grave an inconvenience. The reason is that on the one hand everyone is held from justice to impede lest by his action, even inculpable, he cause damage to another which he can easily forestall; but on the other hand from light or only material fault ordinarily there does not arise an obligation with grave inconvenience.

Quaer. 2° To what is a confessor held who omitted to admonish the penitent concerning restitution to be made?

Resp. 1° He is held to admonish the penitent within Confession concerning the obligation, with some inconvenience, if no or only light fault intervened, at least by reason of charity; but with greater inconvenience if in the omission he sinned gravely, or perhaps also if he to whom restitution is to be made would suffer very grave damage thence, although the confessor sinned in no way or only lightly in the omission.

Resp. 2° Whether in that case the confessor is held to restore, see n. 774. q. 1°. and what was said n. 1487. under II.

Quaer. 3° Whether he is held to restitution who from only light fault released the penitent from the obligation of restoring, if afterward he neglects to admonish him, when he easily can?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is that, although the confessor without fault, at least grave, exempted the penitent from restitution, nevertheless, since his counsel continues to influence the damage of the creditor, he himself, the error being known, is held from justice to remove the cause of the damage, if he easily can (n. 749. q. 3°).

Quaer. 4° Whether a confessor, without the license of the penitent, can speak with him outside Confession concerning a defect committed?

Resp. Negatively, according to the more probable opinion, to which St. Alphonsus subscribes and which Lugo calls common, if the penitent has already departed; the reason is that that admonition outside Confession is burdensome to the penitent. Besides, since after absolution the judgment has been completed, that admonition would be separated from Confession. Nevertheless, if the confessor had not absolved the penitent, or had not absolved him rightly, i.e. with the form badly pronounced, even without license asked he could, and speaking per se ought, to disclose his error, saying, for example, that he did not absolve; by which manner indeed neither is the seal broken, nor can there be a reasonable offense of the penitent.

The Seal of Confession is a religious obligation of preserving secrecy concerning those things which are known from Sacramental Confession.

We must treat 1° of the obligation of the seal; 2° of the subject of the seal; 3° of the object of the seal; 4° of the various modes of violating it.

St. Th., Suppl., q. 11.

620. After the act of confession there are three offices or obligations of the minister: a) per se:

1. of preserving the sacramental seal,

2. of not using, to the burden of the penitent, knowledge received in confession,1 - b) per accidens:

3. of supplying defects and correcting errors.