What falls under the seal

Not only all sins mentioned in confession are the matter of the seal, but everything which was mentioned because it was thought to be a sin, and every circumstance which was mentioned in order to make a full confession and whose manifestation would tend to injure the penitent or make confession odious, comes under the seal. And so if one who is under a vow of chastity mentions the fact in order to make a full confession of a sin of impurity, the fact that the person is under vow is protected by the seal. In the same: way moral and social defects, such as scrupulosity and illegitimacy, come under the seal if they were made known with reference to confession, and if their manifestation would be to the injury of the penitent or make confession odious.

The virtues of a penitent are not the matter of the seal, nor does a confessor seem to violate his obligation if he merely says that he has heard the confession of such a one, unless on account of special circumstances it would cause injury to the penitent or make confession odious. Nor does a confessor whose watch was stolen by a penitent while making his confession break the seal by giving information of the theft to the police,

What is the object of the seal? - The object of the seal is all sins confessed, and all things which pertain to the individual explanation of sins. The reason is that not only for sins, but also for all those things which help to explain them, the reason of the seal presses, and besides these constitute one thing with sins. - The object of the seal is also whatever has been manifested in Confession by reason of the Confession itself, the revelation of which would yield to the burden of the penitent and to hatred of the sacrament; because the seal was introduced lest from fear of revelation the faithful be drawn back from the sacrament of penance. L. 640.

Resolutions: The following fall under the seal of Confession: 1. All circumstances of sins, even those declared after absolution; for they are morally one with the sins already accused; even those declared through mere ignorance; otherwise Confession would be rendered very difficult, especially for those who do not know how to discern what things are altogether necessary and what things can and ought to be omitted in the Confession of one's own sin. Indeed the same must be said even if there were doubt whether the circumstances had been declared in relation to Confession or not. And thus "if someone confesses that he has sought the debt from his wife, although he had a vow of chastity, it cannot be said without violation of the seal that he has a vow of chastity." Lugo, d. 23, n. 52. All circumstances: understand those from whose manifestation one of the three aforesaid inconveniences could arise, namely revelation of Confession, burden of the penitent, or hatred of the sacrament. For many things are said also for explaining sins which of themselves do not seem to fall under the seal, e.g., that someone is married, a father of a family, an artisan, a merchant, initiated into sacred orders, a pastor, a ruler, etc. For these and other like things are said as publicly known, and only so that the confessor who perhaps is ignorant of them can form a right judgment about the sins. Lugo, l.c., n. 57. - 2.

The sins of an accomplice, even if they had been revealed without necessity along with the sin, because they were said from the intrinsic occasion of Confession. Likewise the object of the sin, if, e.g., a brother confesses that he did not correct his brother for theft committed. Except if there is no danger of revelation, no burden of the penitent, and no hatred toward the sacrament, e.g., if the penitent confesses that he rejoiced over a homicide committed in a public square. - 3. The penances imposed, unless perhaps they are very light, or from those which are usually imposed for the lightest faults. - 4. Defects manifested through Confession for explaining the nature of the sin, e.g., if the penitent says that he received sacred orders with an irregularity, because he is illegitimate, etc. - Lugo, d. 23, n. 59, 68; L. 640, 641; Suarez, d. 3, s. 3, n. 5, 10.

Do merely civil defects, e.g., of poverty; natural defects, e.g., of deafness or blindness; moral defects, e.g., of ignorance or scrupulosity, fall under the seal? - St. Alphonsus judges that all these defects fall under the seal if the penitent manifests these defects in order to explain sins; indeed even if they contribute nothing to explaining sins, but to explaining his conscience more fully; indeed even if they become known to the confessor from the actions of the penitent himself, or from the manner of confessing; indeed even if they are reported by the penitent in such a way that from the circumstances it is gathered that they are commonly known.

The reason for all these things is that in the first case that explanation enters into explaining the very nature of the sin; but in the other cases, because, since such defects, speaking of themselves, are odious, their manifestation would always render Confession somehow odious, and some burden would always result in some way for penitents, who for that reason would be delayed from Confession. - Hence they do not fall under the seal: 1.

If such defects are voluntarily disclosed incidentally or as altogether impertinent to Confession, namely without any order to explaining sins, to disclosing the conscience better, and are not known from the very manner of confessing. The reason is that then they pertain in no way at all to Confession. 2. If they are defects altogether known and public, and such that their manifestation cannot of itself bring burden and shame to the penitent, as is to be a beggar, blind, etc., nor bring hatred upon the sacrament by turning the faithful away from it or delaying them.

"But Roncaglia says that if some penitent is commonly known to be very prolix, restless, etc., in explaining something, then because it would clearly appear that the confessor is fleeing lest he be affected with weariness from his natural prolixity, restlessness, etc., in such circumstances to flee would not be a breaking of the seal. This can probably be admitted if it is commonly evident to others that that penitent is of timid conscience, so that he is judged morally certainly to be free from graver faults." L. 644, 641-643. On the contrary, if the confessor knows from preceding Confessions that someone is accustomed to have many sins, or to bring a slight disposition, he cannot hide himself or excuse himself from hearing him, even under some apparently just pretext. The reason is that although then "that flight under an apparently just pretext would not render Confession odious to such a penitent, nevertheless it would render it odious generally to the Christian commonwealth." L. 659.

Do virtues and revelations fall under the seal? - "I believe a distinction must be made: for sometimes the aforesaid things are said in order to receive instruction from the confessor, or to manifest the state of conscience integrally; and then they do not pertain to the matter of Confession, nor do they pertain to the seal, but to natural secrecy. But sometimes they can be said in order better to declare some sin, e.g., ingratitude toward God after these and those gifts and benefits of God, or inconstancy in good after such a firm purpose of procuring perfection, and similar things; and then I believe that they pertain to the seal, since they are already, at least obliquely, matter of Confession, and besides it appears that the penitent does not wish to manifest them outside Confession, but to retain them under the most strict seal of Confession." Lugo, d. 23, n. 58; L. 641.

Does a confessor violate the seal of Confession by saying about a certain determined person that he confessed his sins to him, or confessed only venial sins, or that he absolved him, or simply that he confessed? - If he says thus in general that such a person confessed his sins or venial sins to him, speaking of itself, he does not violate the seal of Confession.

For nothing is said which the penitent himself did not manifest publicly both to others and to the confessor himself by the very act of approaching sacramental Confession; for by Confession sins are manifested, at least venial sins, from which even the just and holy are not free daily. Therefore neither from that manifestation is Confession made odious, nor does any burden come to the penitent. But the seal of Confession is not broken unless either 1. insofar as the sin of the penitent is truly manifested, whether directly or indirectly; or 2. insofar as the sacrament of penance becomes odious; or 3. insofar as some burden comes to the penitent. But it is said of venial sins, speaking of itself, for it would certainly not be lawful to say that someone confessed venial sins to you if you say it in such circumstances from which it can be gathered that others are guilty or have confessed mortal sins, or otherwise, or that on this same occasion the penitent himself also confessed mortal sins, or if it would be understood what venial sin in species he declared. Here it must be noted that by saying about someone that he brings only light matters exclusively, Confession can also be revealed if, for example, afterward it is known that he secretly committed several sins, which consequently it is now recognized that he kept silent in Confession. L. 638, 640; Lugo, d. 23, n. 50; La-Croix 1972. If he says that such a penitent confessed several venial sins, or discloses some venial sin in particular, he now violates the seal of Confession. And this is clear from the common doctrine of theologians, because in direct violation of the seal smallness of matter is not admitted. L. 640. - Laymann n. 6 openly says that the seal is not violated if the confessor says that he absolved someone well confessed, provided he does not speak in such a way that he can be conjectured to be a great sinner; add, or even that otherwise he himself had not been absolved, or that others did not receive absolution, or that there is danger that later his Confession will appear to have been sacrilegious. "The seal is not broken... if you say that N. confessed to you, although in certain circumstances this also is dangerous. Indeed if the penitent by word or deed, for example by approaching secretly, has signified that he does not wish it to be known that he confessed, Reginald, Navarro, etc., hold that the confessor reveals the seal, and Sporer, etc., rightly agree, because the penitent by confessing to an extraordinary confessor would come into suspicion of a graver crime." L. 638.

Do sins committed in Confession itself, e.g., of impatience or insult against the confessor, fall under the seal? - Resp. In the negative, rigorously of themselves, because the penitent does not confess those faults, as is clear. Yet affirmatively for the most part, although only per accidens; because although those sins are not of themselves matter of the seal, nevertheless often per accidens they involve in some way the danger of revelation; for they provide a probable indication that the confessor either refused to absolve the penitent, or because of a graver fault rebuked him more severely. - But theft committed by the penitent to the harm of the confessor himself during the time of Confession would not fall under the seal. Indeed if it were established that the thief had come to confess in order to have the occasion of stealing, the sins accused by him would not be matter of Confession; since such a Confession would not be true, but only simulated. - Lugo, d. 23, n. 60; L. 643.

2. Xaverius, a confessor, asks: After the penitent has manifested that he confessed all his sins, which were many and grave, and narrated them publicly to others, can he himself by his own authority confirm the matter, and thus manifest his true conversion to the glory of God?

R. These things of Busembaum apud St. Alphonsus 638 pertain to our matter: "The seal is not broken ... if you use knowledge acquired outside confession, indeed if you reveal the very sin which became known to you from elsewhere, provided you do not report any circumstance known from confession alone, nor more certainly than you know outside confession; in which Case great caution is needed, and it is safest to be silent." - Layman, l. 5, tr. 6, n. 9, has these things: "It has not been granted to the confessor to elicit public sins, insofar as they have been received from confession," and he says this is common doctrine. "Outside confession," says Busembaum again apud St. Alphonsus 651, "with the license of the penitent, there can be dealing concerning things heard in confession either with the penitent himself, or with any other person, although it is dangerous ... Concerning which license it is required 1.º that it be formal and express, for a presumed, tacit, interpretative, virtual license, even for the good of the penitent himself, does not suffice ... It is the same whether that license is given by word or by deed, which indeed is equivalent to express concession; for example, if the penitent outside confession begins to speak with the confessor about things said in confession, for then Aversa, Tanner, etc., teach that this man can proceed. Yet Lugo well observes, says St. Alphonsus, that in that case the seal still perseveres with respect to others, because, although the penitent speaks outside confession, nevertheless he is judged not to furnish the confessor any license other than one dependent on the confession performed." Wherefore, as regards the proposed question, if the penitent truly and expressly gives permission to the confessor that he may manifest his confession and confirm his conversion to God, if the confessor does this, he does not act against the seal, but the matter is very dangerous. But if the penitent does not truly and expressly give this license to the confessor, although he himself then publicly manifests his sins, the confessor cannot use the knowledge received through confession and speak according to it to confirm those things which he hears from others.

655. Principles. - I. The object of the seal is all sins confessed ¹, and all things which pertain to the individual explanation of the sins. The reason is that the reason of the seal presses not only for the sins but also for all those things which assist in explaining them; and, moreover, these constitute one thing with the sins.

¹ It is certain (De Lugo says, disputation 23, no. 50) that all mortal sins, and indeed venial sins also, are matter of the seal, yet with this distinction: mortal sins not only in species but also in genus; but venial sins in species and not in genus. For the Confessor can say: This man confessed his venial sins to me. For by the very fact that he confessed, he is supposed to have confessed venial sins; wherefore, just as he can say that the man confessed, so he can say that he confessed venial sins and received penance for them.

II. The object of the seal is also whatever was manifested in confession whose revelation would turn to the burden of the penitent and to hatred of the Sacrament, because the seal was introduced lest the faithful be withdrawn from the Sacrament of Penance by fear of revelation.

656. Resolutions. - The following fall under the seal of confession:

1. All circumstances of sins, even those declared after absolution, for they are morally one with the sins already accused; indeed, the same is to be said even if it were doubtful whether the circumstances were declared in order to confession or not.

2. The sins of an accomplice, even if they were revealed together with the sin without necessity, because they were said from the intrinsic occasion of confession.

3. Penance imposed, unless perhaps it is very light or one of those which are customarily imposed for the slightest faults. - St. Ligorius, no. 604 and following.

4. Defects manifested through confession in order to explain the nature of a sin; for example, if a penitent says that he received sacred Orders with an irregularity because he is illegitimate, etc. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

657. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Do the virtues and scruples of a penitent fall under the seal?

Reply as to the first. No, per se, unless a burden to the penitent or to others follows from it ².

² To this also pertain extraordinary gifts of God and charisms. As De Lugo judges (On Penance, disputation 23, no. 58), and after him St. Alphonsus (no. 642) with others, they can become matter of the seal at least indirectly when they are manifested in order better to declare the malice of one's own sin on account of ingratitude. Diana, however (volume 1, treatise 8, resolution 19), thinks that this rarely has place; but he agrees with De Lugo that the penitent can bind the Confessor under natural secrecy to conceal these virtues and gifts. For the rest, the reason brought forward why virtues and gifts can become matter of the sacramental seal does not seem to have great force.

** At the final words of this Note the VV. write (p. 643, in the Note): Nevertheless, Father B. must concede that the same (reason) is at least probable and therefore cannot licitly be rejected or neglected by the Confessor.

Reply. According to all, and also St. Alphonsus, some reason, in order to produce the probability of an opinion, must be grave and solid. Moreover, in the case, although from the revelation of extraordinary gifts someone could conjecture that those gifts were manifested by the penitent not only for the sake of direction but also to declare his own malice and ingratitude, what indeed will you find in this which in some manner pertains to the seal of confession? Let someone conjecture, so be it, that perhaps the penitent on account of those gifts was affected by more intense sorrow for his sins. But since penitents enriched with gifts of this kind are accustomed to conceive the most intense sorrow even for the slightest defects, what at length does that conjecture imply which can be referred to a violation of the sacramental seal?

St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 641) excepts the case if those gifts are stated in order to explain some defect. But even this reason seems sought from too far away. For will it be against the seal of confession to say that the penitent is either a Religious, or marked with sacred Orders, or married, or a schoolmaster, etc., because the penitent manifested some one of these circumstances in order to manifest some defect?

Therefore, the matter seems to be reduced to those limits which De Lugo proposes thus (disputation 23, no. 58): Sometimes (those gifts) can be stated in order to declare some sin better, for example, ingratitude toward God after these or those gifts and benefits of God; or inconstancy in good after such a firm purpose of procuring perfection, and things of this kind. And then I believe that they pertain to the seal, since they are now, at least indirectly, matter of confession; AND, MOREOVER, IT APPEARS THAT THE PENITENT DOES NOT WISH TO MANIFEST THEM OUTSIDE CONFESSION, BUT TO RETAIN THEM UNDER THE MOST STRICT SEAL OF CONFESSION. Why indeed did he add this final condition?

Reply as to the second. Yes, because scrupulosity is in some manner matter of confession, and, moreover, a burden to the penitent would follow from such a manifestation. - St. Ligorius, no. 644; Lacroix, no. 1947; De Lugo, etc. ³.

³ A scruple is certainly matter of the seal when someone confesses as a sin that which is not such, but which by a false judgment was thought by him to be a sin. Thus De Lugo (On Penance, disputation 23, no. 59), who nevertheless judges otherwise concerning scrupulosity, as also concerning other defects of the penitent, which, he says (ibid., no. 60), the Confessor can gather from the very manner of confessing. Concerning these, some seem to suppose that they are contained under the seal and therefore that the Confessor cannot say without violating it that the penitent is scrupulous, spends time on impertinences and trifles, breaks the head of the hearer, is morose, and things of this kind. But I believe more truly that they are not contained, as Navarrus, chapter 8, no. 12, says that it is not against the seal if someone says that such a penitent pounds the head of the Confessor with his minutiae. The reason is that some defects are manifested by the penitent to declare his conscience and sins, and these are contained under the seal. Others are done there by the penitent himself, which the Confessor does not hear from the report of the penitent but himself sees and perceives; and just as these are not spoken secretly, so they are not under the seal.

Hence St. Alphonsus also (no. 644) concedes that the Confessor can flee a penitent who is commonly known to be prolix, restless in confessing, etc., because it clearly appears that the Confessor flees lest he be affected by weariness and an irksome loss of time from his natural prolixity and restlessness. Nevertheless, the same St. Alphonsus, both as regards other defects (no. 643) and as regards scrupulosity (no. 644), says that he does not acquiesce in the opinion of De Lugo and rather adheres to the opinion of Tamburini, who teaches against De Lugo that it is not lawful to reveal them. But it is false that De Lugo concedes that it is lawful to disclose those things about which the question is; for both he himself and Navarrus contend only that this manifestation is not a violation of the sacramental seal. It is one thing for some manifestation not to be a violation of the sacramental seal, and another for that manifestation to be lawful, since it can be against the law of natural secrecy. St. Alphonsus himself had excellently distinguished these two things (no. 642). You have an example of a revelation which can render confession odious and yet is not a violation of the seal below at no. 659.

** The VV. do not approve (p. 642, in the Note), first, Cardinal De Lugo's distinction between defects which are manifested by the penitent to declare his conscience and sins, and other defects which the Confessor does not hear from the report of the penitent but himself sees and perceives. Likewise, second, they do not approve the distinction between a manifestation which is a violation of the sacramental seal and a manifestation which is not licit, as being contrary to the law of natural secrecy, but nevertheless is not a violation of the sacramental seal.

And they reply: That these things may be answered briefly, it suffices to recall the twofold rule handed down by the holy Doctor on this matter. The first general rule is that the seal is injured whenever he uses confession... to the burden of the penitent (Apostolic Man, treatise 16, no. 157). The second: It is not lawful to use a probable opinion to the prejudice of a certain right which another possesses; but the penitent possesses the right that he suffer no burden on the occasion of his confession (book 6, no. 633).

Reply. As regards the second of the aforesaid distinctions which the VV. reprove, surely while writing these things they seem to have forgotten what on the preceding page (641) they themselves had written thus: The sole question treated here is whether the Confessor breaks the seal, not whether he speaks licitly and sins by no other reason. But surely they treat of speech which imports manifestation, for the question concerns a Confessor who says that in confession he heard the sin of a Religious of such an Order. Why, therefore, do they not apply to themselves the twofold rule of the holy Doctor which they object against the Note? Weight and weight; measure and measure!

As regards the former distinction of Cardinal De Lugo, here also the VV. seem to have forgotten those things which St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 642) has thus: It is asked whether a Confessor breaks the seal who divulges the natural defects of his penitent, namely, that he is ignoble, poor, or ignorant, deaf, and things of this kind. It is replied: If the Confessor learned such defects insofar as they were manifested by the penitent in order to explain and more fully to manifest his conscience (as he says a little afterward), then they certainly fall under the seal, as is commonly held, etc., with De Lugo, etc. But it is otherwise if the Confessor learned those defects insofar as the penitent disclosed them incidentally or impertinently to confession, as is also commonly said.... And this is very probable. The reason is that, since the penitent voluntarily discloses such defects without any order to explaining sins, he seems in no way to subject them (nor could he subject them) to the keys of the seal, since they pertain in no way to confession. And in these words you now have the distinction of Cardinal De Lugo. Indeed, St. Alphonsus goes still further, for he speaks of defects which the penitent voluntarily discloses, while De Lugo treats not of defects voluntarily disclosed by the penitent, but of those which the Confessor himself sees and perceives, and which he would observe no differently even if he were conversing with the penitent not on the occasion of hearing confession but about a mathematical matter.

QUESTION 2. Do the natural defects of a penitent fall under the seal, for example, that he is deaf, stammers, is poor, ignorant, lame, and so forth?

Reply 1. Yes, if the Confessor learned such defects from the declaration of the penitent, or insofar as they were manifested in order to declare sins ⁴, because then they have a connection with confession, and their declaration would render the Sacrament odious.

⁴ It can scarcely be understood how the fact that the penitent stammers, is lame, deaf, etc., pertains to declaring sins. Moreover, since these defects cannot be hidden from others, they cannot even be matter of natural secrecy. Rather, the fact that someone is ignorant of the office which perhaps he exercises, for example, that of a physician, advocate, pastor, Confessor, teacher, etc., could pertain to declaring sins.

** Here the VV. (p. 643, in the Note) censure Father Gury because he does not report the true doctrine of St. Alphonsus exactly; then they refer to Apostolic Man (treatise 16, no. 154), where the holy Doctor, they say, distinguishes among the defects stated indiscriminately by Gury, namely, defects whose manifestation the penitent can of itself bear with difficulty, and defects which are not a source of shame or reproach to him.

Reply. Gury reports the defects indiscriminately, just as St. Alphonsus sets them forth indiscriminately, who has (book 6, no. 642): That he is ignoble, poor, or ignorant, deaf, and things of this kind. And again (ibid., no. 643): That he lisps, is deaf, uncultivated, of dull intelligence, etc. Indeed, even in the passage which the VV. allege from Apostolic Man (treatise 16, no. 154), he has thus: The natural defects of the penitent also fall under the seal (as we already intimated), for example, that he is deaf, stammers, is poor, ignorant, etc., whenever knowledge of them is had from confession..., even if the penitent were to set forth such defects of his without necessity but only for a better explanation of his sins. Therefore, there was no reason for the VV. to reproach Gury because he reports these defects indiscriminately, etc.; nor likewise was there reason to censure the Note because it says therein that it scarcely appears how the fact that the penitent stammers, is lame, deaf, etc., pertains to declaring sins. For the rest, since among defects of this kind some can pertain to the matter of the seal and others in no way, as we saw in the preceding Note to be admitted even by the VV., but Gury there treats only of the seal and merely expounds the doctrine of St. Alphonsus concerning this, it was not necessary for him to introduce a discourse there concerning other distinctions, since they do not pertain here.

Reply 2. No, however, if the Confessor learned those defects only incidentally. - St. Ligorius, no. 642, and others commonly, against some.

658. • QUESTION 3. Do sins committed in confession itself, for example, impatience or insult toward the Confessor, fall under the seal?

Reply 1. No, per se, because, as is evident, the penitent does not confess those faults.

Reply 2. Yes, nevertheless, in most cases, although only per accidens, because, even though those sins are not per se matter of the seal, they nevertheless often involve in some manner per accidens a danger of revelation; for they furnish a probable judgment that the Confessor either was unwilling to absolve the penitent or rebuked him more severely on account of a graver fault, etc. ⁵.

⁵ Thus De Lugo, who denies that these things are under the seal (On Penance, disputation 23, no. 60), and St. Alphonsus, who affirms it (no. 643), are excellently reconciled.

** The VV. also wished to censure this short Note (p. 643, in the Note), saying: Father Gury has reconciled nothing, nor did he intend to reconcile anything, since he reports the opinion of the holy Doctor in nearly the same words.

Reply. I altogether deny it. For in Reply 2 Gury added the word IN MOST CASES, which St. Alphonsus has neither in book 6, no. 643, nor in Apostolic Man, treatise 16, no. 154. But that word reconciles the holy Doctor, who rightly affirms that these things are under the seal when they involve in some manner a danger of revelation, with Cardinal De Lugo, who rightly denies it whenever they do not involve this danger; for example, if the penitent broke forth into words of grave impatience because the Confessor, having interrupted the confession, ran to assist a man in the church itself who had been seized by a sudden apoplexy.

But a theft committed by the penitent to the harm of the Confessor himself during confession would not fall under the seal. Indeed, if it were established that the thief came to confess so that he might have an occasion for stealing, the sins accused by him would not be matter of confession, since such a confession would not be true but only simulated.

659. • QUESTION 4. Does one violate the seal who says that he heard such a person in confession?

Reply. No, for the fact that someone approaches confession is known externally or outside confession. Moreover, this is not odious per se but rather brings praise. Nevertheless, the Confessor would be bound to natural secrecy if someone had approached confession secretly. For the rest, sometimes a suspicion of grave sin could thus be introduced per accidens. - St. Ligorius, no. 638.

QUESTION 5. Does one violate the seal who says that he absolved such a penitent?

Reply. No, per se, because in such a case that cannot be burdensome to the penitent. Nevertheless, in some circumstances it could become burdensome to others concerning whom the same cannot be said. - Thus commonly. Therefore parents, teachers, masters, when asking about absolution given to children or subjects, are to be referred to the penitents themselves. Nuns devoted to the care of the sick in hospitals are accustomed to ask similar questions, so that they may know whether they ought to prepare the things necessary for administering Viaticum; they likewise are to be referred to the sick, or it is better that permission be sought from the sick person to admonish the Nuns or others. It will suffice, however, to say to the sick person: I will give notice, etc. ⁶.

⁶ Understand this when the sick person is to receive the Holy Eucharist; for when he ought to omit Holy Communion, it will seem less suitable for the Confessor to assume for himself this care of admonishing others about the matter.

660. • QUESTION 6. Can a Confessor who hands a penitent a certificate in testimony of confession declare that he was absolved?

Reply. Absolutely not. The reason is that a comparison would be made with penitents who could not be declared absolved, and consequently an indirect revelation of confession would follow. - St. Ligorius, no. 639 ⁷. The holy Author excepts the case in which the certificates were printed and it was said in them that absolution had been given, because such certificates would be handed to all.

⁷ St. Alphonsus in fact has none of these things. But, setting aside the question whether it is ever expedient to testify concerning absolution imparted, it is manifest that the resolution of the Author has place only when that comparison and the consequent inconvenience intervene.

QUESTION 7. How is a certificate of confession to be drawn up?

Reply. It is customarily drawn up thus: I, the undersigned, testify that I heard the confession of N. on such a day, etc. The Confessor subscribes his name to this certificate. Or more briefly: I heard such a person in confession on such a day, etc. It can also be said: I heard a sacramental confession, because every confession which is made in order to receive absolution is sacramental, whether absolution was given or not.

661. • QUESTION 8. Does a Confessor violate the seal who denies a certificate of confession to an indisposed penitent?

Reply 1. Yes, whenever he denies the certificate to a penitent asking for it outside confession. The reason is that he uses knowledge from confession for acting externally, and indeed with a great burden to the penitent.

Reply 2. Yes, even if the penitent who was not absolved asks for the certificate within confession and the matter concerns those circumstances in which it is customarily given or is required by the Superiors of the penitent, as often happens at Paschal time for students of colleges, servants, etc. The reason is that from the denial of the certificate it becomes known to others that the penitent was not rightly confessed or absolved, and therefore there will be an indirect violation of the seal. - Thus commonly. - St. Ligorius, no. 639; Elbel, no. 492; Sporer, no. 839, etc.

Reply 3. No, however, if the penitent asks for the certificate in confession outside the aforesaid circumstances, or when it is not customarily given to all or is not required by Superiors. The reason is that then the Confessor, saying nothing, conducts himself merely negatively and does not approve that confession by a positive testimony, to which he is not bound. Moreover, the penitent is not compelled by necessity to declare to others that he was not absolved; hence, if he says this, he himself discloses his indisposition, not the Confessor. - Thus De Lugo, disputation 23, no. 87, with others.

Sometimes, however, the Confessor can give a certificate of confession even to an indisposed penitent on account of various inconveniences which would follow from its denial; nor will he then cooperate in the sacrilege of the penitent, who perhaps will use this testimony of confession in order to receive a Sacrament of the living, for example, the Eucharist or matrimony, in the state of sin. The reason is that the penitent will have to attribute this to his own malice. - Elbel, no. 492.

Reply 4. No, also, whenever the penitent made a simulated confession, for example, to flee punishment, avoid infamy, or seize a certificate, as if a young man confessed thus with matrimony in view: I did what young men of my condition are accustomed to do; nothing else remains to be said; I do not seek absolution, but a testimony that confession has been made. For the seal is not broken whether the certificate is denied within or outside confession. The reason is that the seal arises from sacramental confession alone, which is in no manner had here. Nor generally can the Confessor grant such persons a certificate, because without sufficient reason he would cooperate in their future sacrilege. Moreover, he would assert a falsehood, namely, that they had confessed, which is not true. - De Lugo, disputation 23, no. 87; Elbel, no. 494, etc.

662. • QUESTION 9. What should a Confessor do upon discovering that the penitent is deaf?

Reply 1. If he observes the deafness at the beginning of confession, he ought to enjoin the penitent to return at a suitable time and place.

Reply 2. If he discovers it in the course of confession, he generally cannot enjoin the penitent in a loud voice to return, lest he introduce into others a suspicion that the man confessed grave matter; but let him hear the sins in the best manner he can and, after omitting questions, impart absolution to the penitent absolutely if he judges him disposed, or conditionally if he doubts the disposition; and let him impose a light penance upon him, lest others judge that he sinned gravely. - Thus St. Ligorius, no. 642, with others commonly.

663. • QUESTION 10. Can the Confessor admonish an accomplice, with the permission of the penitent, or another person for correcting the accomplice?

Reply. Yes. The reason is that an accomplice acquires no right to the sacramental seal from the confession of another accomplice, for this seal was instituted in favor of penitents alone; and therefore the right of secrecy is acquired only by the one who entrusts it. - St. Ligorius, no. 641, and others most commonly.

Ordinarily, however, it is not expedient that the Confessor seek such permission ⁸; but it will be better to induce the penitent to disclose this to him outside confession; indeed, it will be still better that the penitent himself report the matter to another who can bring a remedy to the evil. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

⁸ Recall here the things said above (no. 501) concerning Confessors who seek the name of an accomplice even for correction, and concerning the Constitutions of Benedict XIV on the same matter.

What a priest hears in sacramental confession, he hears not as a man, but as the representative of God, and hence, when asked as a private individual, he may deny knowledge which he possesses only from confession. In acting thus he does not employ a purely mental reservation because every one knows that a priest, if asked for information, even in court, answers merely as a man, and not as the vicar of God.¹² The case would be different if he were expressly asked whether he knew of a thing through confession. He would then not be allowed to say no because this would be a manifest untruth or might involve a violation of the seal —an untruth if he really had the knowledge which he was asked to betray; a violation of the seal if he knew nothing about the matter in question. His duty in such an emergency would be to denounce the question as improper and refuse to answer even at the risk of life.¹³

¹² St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, Supplem., qu. 11, art. 1, ad 3: "A man is brought forward as a witness only as a man, and therefore without injury to conscience he can swear that he does not know what he knows only as God’s representative." —St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., J. VI, n. 646. —J. P. Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 497: "What ought a confessor to answer one who questions him about things heard in confession? Let him reply, even with an oath if necessary, that he knows nothing or has heard nothing, because he has no communicable knowledge. So say all." —G. Estius, Comment, in Sent., IV, dist. 17, n. 14: "The sense of the response will be: I do not know in that mode of knowledge according to which I am bound to answer you who question me." —Cfr. A. Lehmkuhl, S.J., Casus Conscientiae, Vol. I, 2nd ed., n. 574.

¹³ Cfr. F. Lorinser, Die Lehre von der Verwaltung des hl. Bussakramentes, 2nd ed., p. 37.

444. c) The object of the seal, or its matter, consists of: alpha) all mortal sins accused in general and in species, and venial sins accused in species (unless they are known to the confessor from elsewhere); beta) all those things which became known by reason of sacramental confession and the revelation of which would redound to the burden of the penitent, for example, the circumstances of sins, accomplices, and defects of the penitent.

But those things whose revelation does not redound to the burden of the penitent or to hatred of the sacrament are not matter of the seal, such as the gifts and virtues of the penitent. Nevertheless, even these sometimes fall under the natural secret.

You will resolve:

1. The confessor is bound to the seal even if he had to deny absolution to the penitent; for a sacramental confession was present, although the sacrament was not completed. For the root from which the seal arises is not sacramental absolution, but the "penitential judgment," as the Fourth Lateran Council says.³⁹⁴

2. The penance imposed is also an object of the seal (at least if it is grave), since from the penance someone could conclude the gravity of the sins accused; likewise, knowledge of an accomplice obtained from confession; likewise, absolution denied, but not (ordinarily) absolution given. Nevertheless, in practice let the confessor not say or write: I absolved such a penitent. Cf. below, n. 447, on writing a certificate of confession.

3. The natural defects of the penitent, for example, scrupulosity, illegitimate birth, and so forth, are matter of the seal if they are known from confession alone and if the penitent endeavors to conceal them outside confession.

4. A confessor, after hearing the confession of some notorious thief, can indeed speak concerning those thefts as things already known to himself and to others from elsewhere; but he can by no means say: The public thief confessed his thefts to me. For in no case is it lawful for him to say that he heard something in confession.³⁹⁵

5. It is indeed not directly contrary to the seal if the confessor says: The penitent lives so innocently that he scarcely confesses venial sins, because every man commits venial sins; nevertheless, locutions of this kind must also be avoided, as also narratives concerning the virtues and gifts of the penitent, because otherwise some indirect violation of the seal can easily occur, and, moreover, because penitents are accustomed to bear such narratives with difficulty.

6. It is not contrary to the sacramental seal if the confessor, in a process of canonization, testifies concerning the sanctity of his penitent. For such testimony neither redounds to the burden of the penitent, since it is given after his death, nor renders confession odious. Nevertheless, the Code of Canon Law, c. 1757, § 3, n. 2, wisely establishes: "Priests are incapable [of giving testimony] with regard to all those things which became known to them from sacramental confession, even if they have been released from the bond of the seal."

7. The confessor is not bound to the seal if the penitent narrated his sins not for the sake of confessing sacramentally, but from another motive, for example, to test the confessor, to obtain his assistance or counsel, to mock him, and so forth. The reason is that sacramental confession alone is the root from which the obligation of the sacramental seal arises.

Note. Outside confession the confessor cannot licitly speak concerning confessed sins even with the penitent himself unless the permission of the penitent has first been obtained, and that altogether freely granted; but in confession itself the confessor can speak even concerning sins declared in previous confessions. When the penitent of his own accord speaks outside confession concerning his sins, by that very fact he gives the confessor permission to speak concerning the same sins, but not concerning others declared previously.

³⁹⁴ c. 12, X 5, 38.

³⁹⁵ Cf. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 11, a. 5 ad 2.

446. From these things it follows that the use of knowledge from confession with a burden to the penitent is prohibited, even:

a) For the greatest spiritual or temporal good of the confessor.

Hence a confessor cannot confess some sin of his own whose accusation would involve a violation of the seal. A confessor, knowing from confession that death threatens himself, can indeed oblige the penitent under grave sin to manifest this to him outside confession; but if the latter refuses, the confessor can now do nothing except entrust himself to the assistance of God. Nevertheless, there are several authors who in this case permit the confessor to free himself from an imminent danger to his life or from great harm,⁴⁰⁷ provided this is done without burden to the penitent. But almost always at least some burden to the penitent is present, and confession is rendered odious if the confessor, against the will of the penitent, externally uses knowledge derived from confession. Therefore the opposite opinion is to be followed in practice, and consequently it is lawful to injure the seal of confession for the avoidance of no evil whatsoever. - A parish priest who knows from confession alone that his own maid is pregnant or continually commits thefts cannot dismiss her from the house. - A confessor, knowing from confession that someone is not a priest, is nevertheless bound to continue confessing to such a pretended priest who was his ordinary confessor. Thus St. Alphonsus.⁴⁰⁸

b) For the good of the commonwealth.

Hence a confessor who knows from confession that someone is a traitor to his country cannot manifest this; or that someone is a murderer, he cannot betray him in order to save the life of some innocent person.

c) For the good of religion.

Thus a confessor who knows from the confession of the bridegroom a sin of the bride, although she sacrilegiously conceals this sin, must give her absolution and afterward also Communion, although he knows her to be in the state of mortal sin. There are indeed some older authors who say that in this case the confessor not only can but must deny Communion if it is sought secretly. For, on the one hand, the precept of not giving what is holy to dogs then presses; but on the other hand, no violation of the seal intervenes, nor would confession be rendered odious to one truly penitent; for confession would perhaps be rendered odious only to the most wicked men, who themselves ought to confess that the priest acted rightly. The same authors teach that a bishop ought to deny orders to one known from confession to be unworthy, and that a parish priest ought to refuse assistance at a marriage in which he knows from confession that a diriment impediment is present. But deservedly St. Alphonsus⁴⁰⁹ calls the opposite opinion true and altogether to be held today, because Innocent XI, by the decree of the Sacred Inquisition cited above, prohibited every use of knowledge obtained from confession with a burden to the penitent.

Note. So strict is the obligation of preserving the sacramental seal that in this matter it is not lawful to follow merely probable opinions,⁴¹⁰ because here there is no longer question of a merely private licitness, but of avoiding the spiritual harm of the whole Christian community.

⁴⁰⁷ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 659.

⁴⁰⁸ Ibid., n. 660.

⁴⁰⁹ Ibid., n. 658.

⁴¹⁰ Ibid., n. 633.

1494. Principles. - I. The object of the seal is all sins confessed, even venial sins, at least in particular, and all things which pertain to the individual explanation of sins. The reason is that the reason of the seal presses not only for sins, but also for all those things which help to explain them, and besides, these constitute one thing with sins. - I said: even venial sins, at least in particular. For he certainly would wound the seal who would say that Titius confessed, for example, a lie, or several venial sins; but not he who would say that he confessed venial matter. For by the very fact that he confessed, he is supposed to have confessed matter of this kind. In practice nevertheless the question seems to me, with others, to be decided according to circumstances, by considering whether by such a saying Confession could perhaps be rendered odious.

II. The object of the seal is also whatever has been manifested in Confession, and the revelation of which would yield to the burdening of the penitent or to hatred of the Sacrament; because the seal was introduced lest, from fear of revelation, the faithful be drawn back from the Sacrament of Penance.

III. Those things do not become the object of the seal through Confession which the confessor knows not from Confession alone, but at the same time from elsewhere, and insofar as he knows them in this way.

1495. Resolutions. - Under the seal of Confession fall:

1° All circumstances of sins, even those declared after absolution: for they are morally one thing with the sins already accused; indeed the same must be said even if it were doubtful whether the circumstances had been declared in order to Confession or not.

2° The sins of an accomplice, even if they were revealed without necessity with the sin, because they were said from the intrinsic occasion of Confession.

3° The penances imposed, unless perhaps they are very light, or from those which are accustomed to be imposed for the lightest faults.

4° Defects manifested through Confession for explaining the character of the sin, for example if the penitent says that he received Sacred Orders with an irregularity, because he is illegitimate, etc.

1496. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Whether the virtues and scruples of the penitent fall under the seal?

Resp. to the 1st. Negatively, per se, unless thence there follows a burdening of the penitent or of others. Resolve the same concerning extraordinary gifts of God. But that burdening would follow if these gifts had been manifested for better declaring the malice of one's own sin because of ingratitude.

Resp. to the 2nd. Affirmatively, if scrupulosity is in some way matter of Confession, or elsewhere from such manifestation there would follow a burdening of the penitent. But scrupulosity would be matter of Confession as to acts which the penitent from a scrupulous judgment thought to be sins and confesses; likewise scrupulosity which as a moral defect is subjected to the Sacramental judgment. - But its manifestation would have to be regarded as a burdening of the penitent if there were question of a Prelate, confessor, and the like, but not if of lay persons, to whom this rather turns to praise.

Quaer. 2° Whether natural defects of the penitent fall under the seal?

Resp. 1° Affirmatively, if there is question of "those defects the manifestation of which the penitent can bear with difficulty of itself, as it would be to say that he is dull in mind, irascible by nature, rude, incapable, poor, if he were of civic birth."

Resp. 2° But negatively, if they are "defects which are not to him a source of shame or reproach, such as to be blind, deaf, a beggar, and the like; and, on the contrary, they already commonly are known."

Quaer. 3° Whether sins committed in the very Confession fall under the seal, for example impatience, insult against the confessor?

Resp. 1° Negatively per se, because the penitent does not confess those faults, as is clear.

Resp. 2° Affirmatively nevertheless for the most part, although only per accidens; because, although those sins are not per se matter of the seal, nevertheless often per accidens they involve in some way the danger of revelation: for they furnish a probable judgment that the confessor either was unwilling to absolve the penitent, or on account of a graver fault reproved him more severely, etc.

But theft committed by the penitent to the damage of the confessor himself at the time of Confession would not fall under the seal. Indeed if it were established that the thief came to confess so that he might have an occasion of stealing, the sins accused by him would not be matter of Confession; since such a Confession would not be true, but only simulated.

Quaer. 4° Whether he violates the seal who says that he heard such a person in Confession?

Resp. Negatively; for that someone approaches to confess is recognized externally or outside Confession. Besides, this is not of itself odious, but rather brings praise. Nevertheless the confessor would be held to the natural secret if someone had approached secretly to confess; indeed even to the Sacramental secret, if by word or deed, namely by approaching secretly, he had signified "that he did not wish it to be known that he had confessed."

Quaer. 5° Whether he violates the seal who says that he absolved such a penitent?

Resp. Negatively, per se, because that cannot be burdensome to the penitent in such a case. Nevertheless in certain circumstances it could become burdensome to others, concerning whom the same cannot be said. - Thus commonly. Therefore parents, teachers, masters, questioning concerning absolution given to sons or subjects, are to be referred to the penitents themselves. Similar questions are accustomed to be made by Nuns devoted to the care of the sick in hospitals, so that they may know whether they ought to prepare the things necessary for administering Viaticum: these likewise are to be referred to the sick; or it is better that license be sought from the sick person to admonish the Nuns or others. But it will suffice to say to the sick person who is going to receive the Holy Eucharist: I shall admonish, etc.

Quaer. 6° Whether a confessor handing to a penitent not absolved a certificate in testimony of Confession can declare that he was absolved?

Resp. By no means. The reason is that it would be a lie, which, since it is intrinsically evil, can never be uttered. Thus St. Alphonsus. The holy Doctor excepts, as probable, if the certificates had been printed and in them it were said that absolution had been given, at least if they are sought publicly; because such certificates would be handed to all, and therefore the confessor would perform "only a material act" by "providing such a certificate."

Quaer. 7° How is a certificate of Confession to be drawn up?

Resp. It is customarily drawn up thus: I, the undersigned, testify that I heard the Confession of N., on such a day, etc.; to this certificate the confessor subscribes his name. Or more briefly: I heard such a one in Confession, on the day, etc. It can also be said: I heard a Sacramental Confession; because every Confession which is made in order to receiving absolution is Sacramental, whether absolution was given or not.

Quaer. 8° Whether a confessor violates the seal who denies a certificate of Confession to an indisposed penitent?

Resp. 1° Affirmatively, as often as he denies a certificate to a penitent asking for it outside Confession. The reason is that he uses knowledge of Confession for acting externally, and indeed with great burdening of the penitent.

Resp. 2° Affirmatively, even if the penitent not absolved asks for the certificate within Confession, and there is question of those circumstances in which it is customary to be given, or it is required by Superiors of the penitent, as often happens in the Paschal time for students of colleges, servants, etc. The reason is that from the denial of the certificate it becomes known to others that the penitent was not rightly confessed nor absolved, and therefore it will be an indirect violation of the seal. - Thus commonly.

Resp. 3° But negatively, if the penitent asks for a certificate in Confession outside the aforesaid circumstances, or when it is not customarily given to all, or is not required by Superiors. The reason is that then the confessor, saying nothing, bears himself merely negatively, and does not approve that Confession by positive testimony, to which he is not held. Besides, the penitent is not compelled by necessity of declaring to others that he was not absolved; hence, if he says this, he himself makes known his indisposition, not the confessor.

Sometimes, however, the confessor can give even to an indisposed penitent a certificate of Confession on account of various inconveniences which would follow from its denial; nor then will he cooperate in the sacrilege of the penitent, who perhaps uses this testimony of Confession for receiving a Sacrament of the living, for example the Eucharist or Matrimony, in the state of sin; the reason is that the penitent will have to attribute this to his own malice.

Resp. 4° Negatively also, as often as the penitent made a simulated Confession, for example to flee punishment, to avoid infamy, or to snatch a certificate, as if a young man with a view to Matrimony should thus confess: "I have done what young men of my condition are accustomed to do: nothing else remains to be said: I do not ask absolution, but a testimony of Confession performed." For the seal is not broken whether within or outside Confession the certificate is denied. The reason is that the seal arises from Sacramental Confession alone, which here in no way is had. Nor generally can the confessor concede such persons a certificate, because without sufficient reason he would cooperate in their future sacrilege. Besides he would assert what is false, namely that they had confessed, which is not true.

Quaer. 9° What ought the confessor do when detecting that the penitent is deaf?

Resp. See n. 1369. q. 6°. Hence 2°.

Quaer. 10° Whether a confessor can admonish the accomplice, with the license of the penitent, or another person for correcting the accomplice?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is that the accomplice from the Confession of the other accomplice acquires no right to the Sacramental seal; for this seal was instituted in favor of penitents only; and consequently the right of secrecy is acquired by him alone who commits it to another.

Ordinarily, however, it is not expedient that the confessor seek such license; but it will be better to induce the penitent to open this matter to him outside Confession; indeed it will be still better that the penitent himself report the matter to another, who can bring a remedy to the evil.

V. The object or matter of the seal is generally all things which are known by sacramental confession and whose revelation can betray the sinner; moreover the seal can extend itself to something either directly or indirectly, of itself or accidentally:

A. Directly and of itself the seal extends itself to everything and only that which has been manifested in order to sacramental confession, namely:

1. the very sins declared, all of them, even the slightest, or only material, even thought and not fulfilled, internal and external, past or future to be perpetrated: mortal even in general, venial in such a species, or in sufficiently notable gravity or multitude; secret and even public as confessed. For St. Thomas says, q. 11, a. 5, ad 1: "The confessor can speak about thefts notorious in law already known to him from elsewhere, but he cannot say: the thief confessed to me his thefts, because in no case can he say that he heard something in confession";

2. the objects of sins, as they can be the sins of another, for example, if someone says that he spoke evil concerning a pregnant girl, concerning the theft or homicide of Titius, that he cursed a drunken son or the deflowerer of a virgin, that he hated his mother on account of adultery, despised his father on account of stinginess;

3. circumstances, as such, even declared after absolution, which are or are judged necessary or useful for the manifestation of sin, for example, frequenting the theater, reading depraved books, boasting of nobility, the quantity of theft: thus occasions, temptations, ends of sin;

4. accomplices of sin who, legitimately or imprudently, are in some way manifested, for example, I committed theft with my brother. Hence the confessor cannot betray the accomplice without the permission of the penitent.

B. Indirectly but of itself there fall under the seal: all things which of themselves can lead to knowledge of sin, as declared by the penitent, or of the sinner, namely:

1. a disgraceful denial of absolution, such as is not from defect of matter or because there is a custom of not absolving at once;

2. the indisposition of the penitent;

3. the satisfaction imposed, unless it is very slight, because it is an occasion of suspecting the penitent to be guilty of mortal sins or of many venial sins;

4. counsel sought or given, if it has connection with confession, for example, for correcting a defect.

C. Other things of themselves in no way fall under the seal; yet sometimes they can fall accidentally. Thus:

1. sins committed in confession, for example, of impatience, insult against the confessor;

2. sins of the penitent or of others as known from elsewhere; unless nevertheless things less certain have been confirmed from confession, or less accurate things have been completely declared;

3. the confession itself and the conferral of absolution;

4. virtues, charisms, and gifts of God, or good works;

5. mere natural or moral defects whether of body or soul.

Yet these can be the object of natural secrecy, as if by approaching secretly the penitent by word or deed signified that he did not wish it to be known that he had confessed; - indeed accidentally they can be matter of the seal, either directly: if they were declared as circumstances of sins (for example, of abuse or ingratitude), or indirectly if from adjuncts they can suggest suspicion concerning the sins or state of the penitent, or concerning the state of others. Thus if someone is revealed to have confessed who had approached secretly, or to an extraordinary confessor (for example, a religious), or to one who enjoys a special faculty, for example, of absolving from reserved things, or one who is not accustomed to confess much and approached on a day on which there is no custom, because there is suspicion of a graver sin, or at least of a non-ordinary one; likewise if someone is said to have confessed only slight things, if he has graver things to accuse, namely on account of suspicion of sacrilege or keeping back; likewise if one or another is praised and put forward as absolved, while nothing is said about others: for then concerning others suspicion easily arises.

625. The object or matter of the seal. - Under the seal fall generally all things which are known by sacramental confession and the revelation of which can betray the sinner; moreover the seal can extend itself to something either directly or indirectly, per se or per accidens.

A. Directly and per se the seal extends itself to all and only that which is manifested in order to sacramental confession.

Thus: 1) all sins themselves declared, even the very slightest, or only material, even thought or merely proposed and not fulfilled, internal and external, past or future to be committed: mortal sins, whether in species or even in genus; venial sins, not in genus, but in such a species or in gravity or multitude sufficiently notable; secret sins, and also public sins as confessed. For, says St. Thomas, a. 5, ad 1: "The confessor can speak about the thefts of a notorious thief already known to him from elsewhere, but he cannot say: the thief confessed his thefts to me, because in no case can he say that he heard something in confession";

2. the objects of sins, as the sins of others can be, e.g., if someone says that he spoke evil about a pregnant girl, about the theft or homicide of Titius, that he cursed a drunken son or the deflowerer of a virgin, that he hated his mother because of adultery, or despised his father because of stinginess;

3. circumstances, as such, even declared after absolution, which are or are thought necessary or useful for the manifestation of the sin, e.g., frequenting the theater, reading evil books, boasting of nobility, the quantity of theft: thus occasions, temptations, the end of the one sinning;

4. accomplices of sin who, legitimately or imprudently, are manifested in some way, e.g., I committed theft with my brother. Hence the confessor cannot admonish an accomplice without the permission of the penitent.

B. Indirectly but per se, under the seal fall all things which of themselves can lead to knowledge of the sin as declared by the penitent, or of the sinner.

Thus 1) a disgraceful denial of absolution, such as is not from defect of matter or because the custom is not to absolve at once;

2. the indisposition of the penitent;

3. the satisfaction imposed, unless it is very slight, because it is an occasion of suspecting that the penitent is guilty of mortal sins or of many venial sins;

4. counsel sought or given, if it has connection with confession, e.g., for correcting a defect.

C. Other things in no way fall per se under the seal, although sometimes they can fall under it per accidens.

Thus: 1) sins committed in confession, e.g., of impatience, insult, or theft toward the confessor;

2. sins of the penitent or of others known from elsewhere, unless, however, less certain things have been confirmed from confession or less accurate things have been declared completely;

3. the confession itself and the conferring of absolution;

4. virtues, charisms, and gifts of God, or good works;

5. mere natural or moral defects, whether of body or of soul.

Yet these can be the object of natural secrecy, as if by approaching secretly the penitent has signified by word or deed that he does not wish it to be known that he has confessed; - indeed per accidens they can be matter of the seal, either directly, if they were declared as circumstances of sins (e.g., of abuse or of ingratitude), or indirectly if from the adjuncts they can introduce a suspicion about the sins or state of the penitent, or about the state of others. Thus it can happen if someone is revealed to have confessed who had approached secretly, or to an extraordinary confessor (e.g., a religious), or to one who enjoys a special faculty, e.g., of absolving from reserved sins, or if one who is not accustomed to confess much has approached on a day on which it is not customary, because there is a suspicion of a graver or at least not ordinary sin; likewise if it is said that someone confessed only light things, when he has graver things to be accused, because of the suspicion, namely, of sacrilege or reticence; likewise if one or another is praised and brought forward as absolved, while nothing is said about others: for then suspicion easily arises about the others.

I say. The object of the seal is not only all sins confessed, as is clear of itself, but also both whatever pertains to the individual explanation of sins and whatever has been manifested in confession and the revelation of which would fall into burden for the penitent and into hatred of the sacrament. The reason of the first is not only because the explanation of sins constitutes one thing with the sins themselves, but also because, once the explanation has been received, one easily comes to knowledge of the sins themselves. But the reason of the second is because the seal has been introduced lest the faithful be drawn back from the sacrament of Penance by the burden which would come from revelation.

V. Whatsoever sins, even public ones, manifested in confession fall under the seal. Hence a confessor hearing the sins of someone condemned to death for thefts, homicides, blasphemies, heresies, and so forth, cannot reveal these crimes as heard in confession. If he knows them from elsewhere, he will be able, occasion being given, to speak as others do. Wherefore a parish priest can and ought to reject from communion his parishioner whom he knows to be a public usurer or concubinary, although for the avoiding of this the parishioner should confess to him.

VII. QUESTION V. Can a confessor say that in such a town, community, or college grave crimes are perpetrated, when he has heard them in confession? ANSWER. He would without doubt break the seal while he laid open grave crimes of such a town, city, or community. If nevertheless the city were ample and populous, I should not believe the seal violated. When therefore the town or city is small, then it is violated, because scandal arises, and it could easily be detected who perpetrated such enormous crimes. He who should reveal of a college or convent a crime heard in confession would break the seal, because he defames such an order. By keeping silence a confessor never sins. In speaking there is always danger. Let him therefore restrain his tongue.

Cajus hands to his pastor a sealed letter received by him from Rome, which he is instructed to hand to any confessor he will choose. The pastor bids Cajus to make mention of the letter the first time he comes to Confession. Cajus, however, neglects to come to Confession again, though reminded of it by his pastor. Soon after Cajus moves into another, rather remote, parish. The pastoris now in a quandary what to do with the dispensation, for such was the contents of the letter, and is in doubt as to whether to leave Cajus in bona fide that everything is all right, or whether to return the dispensation to him for the purpose of handing it over to his present confessor. Would the sigillum be against that? What isto be done?

Solution: The pastor either was Cajus' confessor or he was not. If he was, the handing over of the dispensation took place under the seal of Confession; for the subject of the dispensation was a secret impediment to marriage, of which the pastor knew through the confessional, and for the setting aside of which he himself had asked for the dispensation for his penitent. In this case any mention of the dispensation even to a subsequent confessor of Cajus is excluded. If he was not the confessor of Cajus then the handing over of the dispensation would stand in the same immediate connection with the confessional, if Cajus had had the intention to go to Confession. But Cajus evidently does not intend to do so, and seems to be of the opinion that with the handing over of the letter from Rome to a priest everything necessary had been done. Cajus on his part, therefore, does not make it a matter of Confession, Nevertheless, the dispensation comes under the obligation of the sigillum. For whoever as superior or adviser is by a penitent made acquainted with a fact, receives this knowledge under the seal, and must preserve it under the same. This also is true of the one who has been entrusted with the conferring of such dispensation "in foro Sacramenti." Our pastor accepted the commission by receiving the letter from Rome, and therefore put himself under the obligation of the seal. Hence it follows that without the explicit consent of Cajus he can not hand the dispensation over to the latter's present confessor, and, furthermore, that he can only deliver it to Cajus himself in a way which will prevent any violation of the secret.

What should be done under the circumstances? The pastor should try and make Cajus call upon him and then give the necessary explanation. If Cajus will then go to Confession, the pastor can hand him the dispensation under observance of all rules concerning it. If Cajus will not go to Confession, then the pastor must hand the letter over to him with directions to give it at his next Confession to the confessor, so as to make him acquainted with the conditions and decisions of the Holy Father. The conditional invalidity of the marriage should not be mentioned so as not to take away the bona fides, and to avert the liability of formal sin. If Cajus should not appear, then the pastor should keep the letter in a safe place with the directions on it: "To be burned unopened in case of my death."

If there is absolutely no hope of ever seeing Cajus personally, the pastor may burn the dispensation, just as would have to be done with the same after it had been made use of, sub excommunications infra triduum.

Case.—The case here related has actually happened, though along time ago. To Father Aurelius there came to confession a priest, whom we will call Ignotus. He mentioned a doubt about what seemed to him a substantial defect in the nature of his ordination, which Aurelius recognized as justified, and for this reason he appealed to the Sacred Penitentiary. Since an invalid ordination does not admit of sanation, as does marriage, the repetition of the ordination would be necessary. However, the Penitentiary esteemed the seal of confession so highly, and gave so much consideration to the good name of the one (be it bona or mala fide) invalidly ordained, that it required no disclosure of the defect to a bishop, not even by the penitent himself. The whole matter of the confession, at least concerning the person of the priest, should remain. perfectly unknown.

Solution.—Rome’s wisdom solved the case as follows: The confessor Aurelius was summoned and, in presence of no one, was consecrated a bishop at a low Mass, everything necessary having been secretly provided. Thereupon the secret Bishop Aurelius sent for the invalidly ordained Ignotus (who did not even get a glimpse of the bishop who had ordained Aurelius, and became known to no one) and ordained him at a low Mass, likewise without anyone present. The whole proceeding fell under Aurelius’ seal of confession, indeed, this ordination might have taken place in confession. Immediately after this secret ordination, Aurelius was suspended entirely from the episcopacy, ab ordine as also a dignitate, and he could no longer act as bishop, not indeed per modum poenae but in the form merely of a judicial act. Rome considers that either he will not be elected bishop, or not so appointed; but will see to it that, if his nomination (election) should come to Rome, there will not be a repetition of the ordo episcopalis; in this case he might be called to Rome “to take over the Episcopate” and, as if he had now been ordained in Rome, would return in order to be installed.

Regarding Ignotus’ priestly functions thus far the following may be said: His baptisms are valid; the marriages performed by him equally so, because, if he was at least a cleric and had the lesser orders, he was capax beneficii (parochiae), for to undertake a pas-. torate according to the Council of Trent the ordines minores are sufficient, though the cleric is under obligation to receive the higher orders within the year: however, if he assisted at a marriage delegated by a pastor, according to the Council of Trent he must be a priest. A resulting invalidity of marriages may be removed without knowledge of the contracting parties. In case of necessity even the titulus beneficii may be validated as well as the previous enjoyment

-of the fruits thereof, as well as all blessings for indulgences and all other non-sacramental acts. His penitents so far have received no valid absolution from him; this defect could only be cured by God’s mercy, through granting the grace of perfect contrition. It is to be hoped concerning the departed that this was so, if they have been in good faith and have done everything possible on their part. Ignotus disposed his congregation by a sermon to a sincere repentance of all the sins of their lives, and aroused in them the firm intention of going to confession in case they knew that it was necessary, and then absolved them sub conditione in secret. In individual confessions he disposed penitents to a general contrition; he will not require a repetition of former confessions, because his penitents are in good faith, and he need not make known the invalid ordination. (In the same way a priest would act who for some time had absolved without jurisdiction in casu quo Ecclesia non supplet.) Indeed, if his faithful meantime have been to confession elsewhere with a general contrition they are already absolved.

His administering Extreme Unction was invalid, but it is not a sacrament absolutely necessary for salvation. Where scandal is not to be feared he may repeat this sacrament in the case of those gravely sick persons still living. In receiving hosts consecrated by him the faithful did not receive Holy Communion, at most they obtained the merits of a spiritual Communion; but Communion is not “necessitate medii” necessary to salvation.

All Masses said by Ignotus were invalid; as far as there was present in their application a duty of justice, they must be said over or reduced (condoned); moreover the Pope can supply their fruits from the spiritual treasury of the Church. The case is one of special interest, because it is an extraordinary illustration of the sanctity of the seal of Confession and of the avoidance of any odium, and it also offers an example to what extent and in what manner the official actions of individual priests, where there is lack of validity, may be validated or supplied.