The nature and source of the seal

409. The confessor himself is bound to the seal per se and primarily; all those to whom knowledge of sacramental confession has in any way whatever come are bound per accidens and secondarily.¹

1. The confessor is bound to the seal whether he is true or fictitious, or thought to be such by error; therefore even a layman who simulates being a confessor, or is held as a confessor, and to whom the penitent confesses in good faith, is bound.

a. Hence if the confessor is interrogated concerning a matter which he knows from confession, he can and ought to answer that he does not know it; and if he is further asked whether he does not know it even as confessor, he can still answer that he does not know it; and if he is pressed to answer without restriction, he can affirm, even with an oath, that he speaks without restriction, namely without an unnecessary restriction. For all know that the confessor cannot answer otherwise, and that as a private man he truly does not know it and the penitent said nothing to him. But it is better to repel the one asking by this or a similar formula: there is nothing for me to answer to this question.

b. A confessor interrogated in court about a matter which he knows only from confession can use the privilege which is conceded to him both by ecclesiastical law² and, in most regions of Europe, also by civil law, namely of refusing testimony. But because, when testimony is denied, the sacramental seal is sometimes injured indirectly, namely when from the denied testimony suspicion can arise that the accused confessed the delict, in this case he ought rather to answer that he knows nothing. Indeed, because it can rarely be determined whether the seal is injured or not, and because at least the accused who confessed the delict must judge that the priest is denying testimony on account of his confession, it will be preferable that the priest in every case answer: that he knows nothing.

c. A confessor who cannot confess his own sin without injury to the seal ought to omit it; for the obligation of the seal is graver than the obligation of confessing integrally. But danger of violating the seal will rarely be present, provided nothing is said in confession except what is necessary for declaring the species of the sin.

d. A confessor who, after hearing confession, is asked in church by the sacristan, or in a hospital by a sister ministering to the sick, whether those things should be prepared which are necessary for administering communion, should refer the one asking to the penitent himself, so that he may ask him whether he wishes to receive holy communion; and lest any danger of violating the seal ever arise, this must always be done, whether the penitent has been absolved or has not been absolved.

¹ Cn. 889, 2.

² Cn. 1757, 3, n. 2.

410. 2. It happens in two ways that those who have received knowledge of confession are bound to the seal: a. if they received it immediately or mediately from the confession itself; b. if they perceived the matter from a means of actual confession, whether this means was ordered per se or per accidens to actual confession.

a. Therefore interpreters voluntarily employed for making confession are bound. No one is bound to confess through an interpreter unless he voluntarily wishes; nevertheless, if someone employs an interpreter, the latter, as one hearing sins declared in sacramental confession, is bound to the seal.¹

b. Bystanders who, whether by chance or by design, hear a matter declared in confession, and those to whom perhaps a confession heard by these is sacrilegiously revealed; indeed, he who intentionally tries to hear one confessing already sacrilegiously violates the sacramental secret.

If the penitent speaks so clearly that he is heard by those standing around, and while adverting to this nevertheless continues, those who hear the confession can be bound by natural secrecy, but they are not bound by the sacramental seal, because the penitent spontaneously yields his right to a secret confession.²

c. All those to whom the confessor, whether sacrilegiously or imprudently, has revealed something concerning things heard in confession; hence if the confessor in a sermon before the people injured the seal, all would be bound to the seal, so that they could not even speak among themselves about the matter heard.

d. Superiors from whom outside confession, either by the penitent or by the confessor, the faculty of absolving from reserved matters is sought, or to whom one absolved from a reserved matter presents himself, because the superior to whom recourse must be made either for absolution or for penance constitutes with the confessor one sacramental tribunal; for in the former case the necessary preparation of confession is had, in the latter its complement.

e. A theologian whom the confessor, with the permission of the penitent, consults concerning the sins or state of the penitent, unless the penitent has relaxed the obligation of the seal; because just as the work of the interpreter, so the instruction of the consulted doctor is ordered to confession.

If the penitent himself consults a theologian, one must distinguish: if he consults him concerning a confession to be made to another, the consulted theologian is not bound to the seal, because the consultation is not even an inchoate confession; but the seal arises only from sacramental confession at least begun. But if he consults him concerning a confession to be made to that same theologian, he is bound by the seal, because the consultation is an inchoate confession.

f. One reading, whether by chance or by design, the written confession of another is bound by the seal if the writing must be considered as actual confession or as a means ordered to actual confession. But he is not bound by the seal if the paper only contains matter prepared for confession; for a paper of this kind is not confession nor a means of actual confession, but a means chosen and ordered so that confession may afterward be more easily instituted; however, in this case an obligation of natural secrecy is induced, grave or slight according to the nature of the matter which is contained in that schedule.

a. He is bound by the seal who reads a schedule already handed to the confessor by a mute person, or by another who confesses by writing; in the same way, one who reads it after absolution, left in the confessional or sent away by the confessor, because it is as it were a continuing confession.

b. He who reads letters directed to the superior on account of some reservation: for letters of this kind are a means necessarily ordered, by the institution of the sacrament, to confession and therefore a complement of the sacrament.

g. If someone reads a paper in which a penitent, before confession, while making an examination of conscience to assist memory, wrote down his sins, he is no more bound by the seal than one who hears someone making his daily examination of conscience in a louder voice.³ Likewise, one who reads a paper which the penitent used for confessing and which he still keeps after confession does not injure the seal, because this paper can no longer be considered as actual confession.

¹ Cn. 889, 2.

² Lehmkuhl, Casus consc. II, n. 563.

³ Cf. Lugo, disp. 23, n. 47.

By the seal of confession is understood the religious obligation to keep secret anything that is manifested in sacramental confession.

This obligation is imposed by the natural, the divine, and by positive ecclesiastical law. For the very fact that a penitent makes known his sins in secret to the confessor, with a view to obtaining absolution, lays upon the confessor the strictest obligation in justice and in charity not to violate the trust placed in him, much as a doctor or a lawyer when consulted about private matters is bound to observe secrecy with respect to what has been confided to him. Our Lord, who commanded all who fall into grave sin after Baptism to go to confession, could not have imposed such an obligation without requiring confessors to observe the strictest secrecy about what they hear in confession.

The Church, too, in the Fourth Council of Lateran (c. 21) forbids the confessor under grave penalties ever to betray by word, sign, or in any other way, what he has heard in sacramental confession. The Code punishes the confessor who presumes directly to violate the seal of confession with excommunication most specially reserved to the Holy See, if indirectly, with severe penalties. Others who violate the seal are to be severely punished (Can. 2369).

The obligation of the seal of confession differs from all other secrets in that it is never lawful under any circumstances to make known the least thing that has been manifested by a penitent in confession. If questioned about confessional matter, even in a court of justice, the priest must always answer that he knows nothing about it, as with perfect truth he may do, for what he knows as a confessor, he knows as the vicegerent of God, not as man. Not even to save his life or the lives of others may a priest violate the seal; like Fr. Henry Garnett, or St John of Nepomuk, he must be prepared to lay down his life rather than break the seal. He is never released from his obligation even by the death of the penitent, for people are unwilling that their secret sins should be mentioned even after their death.

A grave sacrilege would be committed by the direct manifestation of the least fault known from sacramental confession, but theologians allow that if the danger of confessional matter becoming known is very remote there may be only venial sin in indirect violation of the seal.

What of the obligation of the seal of Confession? - The seal of Confession is the religious obligation of preserving secrecy concerning those things which are known from sacramental Confession, namely of manifesting them to others neither directly nor indirectly, nor, outside confession, to the penitent himself. - There is a most strict obligation of preserving the seal of Confession inviolably.

This is clear 1. From natural law, and indeed under a threefold title, namely from charity, from justice, and from religion. 2. From positive divine law, at least implicit; for from the institution of Christ, Confession, imposed on all from necessity of precept and from necessity of means, must be secret: therefore by that very fact there has been imposed by Christ on confessors the obligation of preserving the seal. 3.

From ecclesiastical law, the Fourth Lateran Council, C. 21, Omnis utriusque sexus, etc. - The obligation of the seal of Confession always presses in every case, so that in no possible case is it lawful to reveal anything heard and received in Confession. The reason is manifestly clear; because if some exception could be given, men would always fear lest such a sin be that cause for licitly breaking the seal, and consequently the sacrament of penance would become odious. Moreover no cause of obtaining good or avoiding evil can compensate for that evil of hatred of the sacrament. - The obligation of the seal arises from every and only sacramental Confession, namely one made with the intention of accusing oneself and obtaining absolution. From every, because then the whole reason for the precept is present; and this holds even if absolution has not been conferred for whatever reason, since Confession is made in order to receive absolution at some time. From only, because only sacramental Confession induces the obligation of the seal, since any other manifestation has no relation with the sacrament of penance. - L. 634, 636; E. M.

Resolutions: Confession which is knowingly made to a layman or to a priest lacking jurisdiction does not induce the obligation of the seal, but only of natural secrecy. It would have to be said otherwise if the priest is believed to be approved; because the Confession on the part of the penitent is truly sacramental. - If someone approaches a confessor with the intention of deceiving him, mocking him, dragging him into sin, or extorting something from him, he does not accuse himself in relation to the sacrament, and consequently there is no obligation of the sacramental seal. - If someone opens his conscience to a confessor without the will of receiving absolution, but in order to obtain counsel, or in order to satisfy in some way the command of a superior, only the obligation of natural secrecy presses, because this is not done in relation to absolution. - L. 640.

Is there smallness of matter in violation of the seal? - Resp. In the negative, at least in direct revelation. The reason is that matter, even the very lightest, includes the whole reason of the precept. At least in direct revelation; because if the danger of indirect revelation is very remote or little probable, lightness of matter can be given. For the revelation, if perhaps some would then follow, would have to be judged to follow by chance and per accidens.

Yet this very remote danger is a thing quite different from smallness of matter. - L. 635, 640; Lugo, d. 23, n. 71.

Is it lawful to use a probable opinion in the matter of the seal? - Resp. In the negative, as regards probability of fact and as regards probability of law. The reason is that it is not lawful to use a probable opinion to the prejudice of a certain right which another possesses. But harm would follow for the penitent, who would be drawn back from confession. And this harm must be altogether prevented.

Therefore the confessor is bound to the seal in doubt whether something was said by the penitent in relation to Confession; and where it is only speculatively probable that the seal is not violated by revealing this or that manifested by the penitent in Confession. St. Liguori 633 has these things: "Before all things... it must be seen whether in this matter of the sacramental seal it is lawful to use probable opinions... Viva... says that no one can use knowledge had from Confession unless it is morally certain, or at least certainly most probable, that from such use no revelation of Confession and no burden to the penitent will come. The reason..., because otherwise a probable burden would be inflicted on the penitent, on account of which Confession would be rendered odious to him... And this reason strongly presses... I think it must altogether be said that it is not lawful to use opinions from whose use it is not morally certain that no burden is inflicted on the penitent." And 637: "In doubt whether something was said by the penitent in relation to Confession, the confessor is bound to the seal... The reason is that otherwise Confession would be rendered odious, since otherwise many sins truly heard in Confession, because of a defect of memory and hallucination of the confessor, could be manifested with impunity." Diana, tom. 1, tr. 8, init.; Ithur., Cas. 37, n. 35; La-Croix 1946.

Can the confessor at least after the death of the penitent use knowledge acquired through Confession? - "The obligation of this seal is most strict, so that in no case ever, for the sake of obtaining any good or avoiding any evil, can any sin whatever, even the least, or anything else that falls under the seal of Confession, be revealed directly or indirectly, before and after the death of the one confessing, without mortal sacrilege." Laymann, l. 5, tr. 6, c. 14, n. 2. And Busembaum 634: "This seal is an obligation to be silent even after the death of the penitent."

Can a confessor, asked about the sin of a penitent, say that he does not know it, even with an oath? - Resp. In the affirmative, even if insistence is made that he speak without mental restriction, or as confessor. The reason is that he truly does not know it with knowledge permitted to human dealings. Hence he will always be able to say, and even to swear, that he does not know, that he says this without equivocation, or that he affirms it even as confessor. Nevertheless the better answer will always be to rebuke the importunate questioner: What kind of question is this which you ask? For sometimes it could happen that all would understand that the confessor truly was ignorant of the matter, and thus would deduce that the Confession had not been integral. - L. 645, 646, H. A. 148; St. Thomas, 4, d. 21, q. 3, a. 1 ad 3.

5. Hannibal, a confessor, asks what must be thought about those things which the distinguished theologian D'Annibale has in nn. 359 and 363. There he hands down the following: "1.º There is no scandal which it is lawful to prevent or repair with a breaking of the seal; for example, if from confession you learned that Seius and Caia, wishing to contract marriage, are father and daughter. Nevertheless our doctors commonly teach that it is wrong, for the sake of preserving the seal, to do something which by its nature is evil, such as to fornicate, to lie. Let others solve this knot."

2.º "If from the confession of Lucius you learned that ambushes are being prepared for you, when you are about to travel, in such a place, can you defer the journey or go by another road, if from this those who are preparing them can deservedly suspect that you received this from the confession of Lucius?"

3.º "That you can deny a sword to him who has confessed to you that he wishes to kill you, when he asks it back from you for the sake of this thing, was once the most common opinion. Otherwise, if he should signify to you in confession that on that day he is going to give you poison at supper, and after confession invites you to supper, you will have to go! From your confession I learned that you, my confessor, are not a priest; I am not compelled to return to you, even if you well understand why I do not return, unless from this some harm or disgrace should redound to you. If I received from you in confession that Seius was baptized with wine, who would say that I cannot rebaptize Seius, because this will be unpleasant to you? Indeed Sporer, n. 870, thinks that if from your confession I learned that Osius is most unworthy of a benefice, I can use this knowledge, even if you bear it ill, if nothing of yours is involved."

R. To the 1st. There is no difficulty in solving that knot. For the aforesaid not preventing scandal is not a sin in the Case. But if fornication and lying are evil by their nature, the seal of confession certainly does not oblige one to sin.

To the 2nd. Negatively. For evidently there is had an indirect revelation of sin and a violation of the seal. But it is supposed, as is clear, that Lucius manifested those ambushes in confession not as a matter not pertaining to confession, but as a matter belonging to the confession itself, by accusing, for example, his sin of complicity. Hence neither could the confessor abstain from the celebration of Mass when he knows in confession from some accomplice of the crime that poison has been poured into the cruet with wine, if the other accomplices would understand that the crime had been revealed by some one of their associates. Lig. 659.

To the 3rd. It does not first appear how these things cohere with the general doctrine of the distinguished author handed down in the same n. 363 a little before. For the distinguished author teaches that without doubt there is a violation of the seal if from the use of knowledge of confession a burden of the penitent follows, immediately adding: "But we must take as burden whatever can be not only harmful to the penitent, but annoying or unpleasant, whether by right or by injury." Then, as the same distinguished author has, n. 359: "In doubts here the safer things and those more favorable to the seal are always to be held, and not only in a doubt of fact ... but more truly also in a doubt of law." Since, therefore, there are various opinions with regard to the proposed Cases, how can someone embrace in practice the opinion against the seal? Besides, if in that Case of returning the sword and avoiding the poison there is not had a violation of the seal, supposing that a sacramental seal is truly present in that twofold Case, how is this violation had, on the contrary, as D'Annibale himself asserts in the same n. 363, "if your servant confessed to you that at night he receives a female friend at home, or plunders your property, and you at night closed the doors, or watched over your property more diligently, or in the confession itself commanded him to depart from service: inasmuch as the master, not the confessor, would command"? If these things redound to the burden or reproach of the penitent, why not those? And as regards the other Case of the confessor who is not a priest, "more commonly and more truly," says St. Alphonsus 660, "Lugo, Mazzotta, etc., hold the opposite. The reason is that in such an omission, although there is not present a revelation of the seal, nevertheless there is always present a certain hateful reproach of the penitent. Nor then is it necessary for you to simulate the sacrament ... but you can simply manifest some sin to that fictitious priest or confessor without intention of absolution." And that certain hateful reproach of the penitent is had by the very fact in the Case of Seius baptized by that penitent with wine. "Nor do the harms," says the same D'Annibale in the place cited, "of another, or of the republic, or of religion excuse; for example, to remove from the office of confessor him whom you know not to be a priest, or not to choose him for this office which you were going to give." But as regards the last Case, there is had hatred of the sacrament; for, if the faithful knew this, that from their confession another could suffer harm, they would be removed from confession. - G. 780, 784; I. M. 844, 845, 851, 858.

5. A rector of a seminary asks: Whether from confessions heard he can at least be enlightened in the right government of the same seminary, as the author of the additions to Wigandt affirms?

647. Principles. - I. There is the strictest obligation of preserving the seal of confession inviolably. This is established: 1. from natural law, and indeed under the title both of justice and of religion; 2. from positive divine law, at least implicitly, for from the institution of Christ confession must be secret; therefore by that very fact the obligation of preserving the seal was imposed upon Confessors by Christ; 3. from ecclesiastical law, as is established from several passages of canon law, especially from the Fourth Lateran Council, chapter 21, Omnis utriusque sexus, where it is said: But let the Confessor take every care not in any way to betray the sinner by word or sign or in any other manner; but if he should need more prudent counsel, let him seek it cautiously without any expression of the person.

II. The obligation of the seal of confession always presses in every case, so that in no possible case is it lawful to reveal anything heard and received in confession. The reason is manifestly evident, because if some exception could be given, men would always fear that such a sin might be that cause for licitly breaking the seal, and consequently the Sacrament would become odious. Moreover, no cause of obtaining a good or avoiding an evil can compensate for this evil of hatred of the Sacrament. - See St. Ligorius, no. 634.

III. 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. It is said, first, from every, because then the whole reason of the precept is present; and this avails even if absolution was not conferred for any cause whatever, since the confession is made in order that absolution may sometime be received. It is said, second, from only, because sacramental confession alone introduces the obligation of the seal, since any other manifestation has no relation to the Sacrament of Penance. - St. Ligorius, no. 536, etc.

648. Resolutions. - 1. A confession knowingly made to a layman or to a priest lacking jurisdiction does not introduce the obligation of the seal, but only that of natural secrecy. It would have to be said otherwise if the priest were believed approved, because the confession on the part of the penitent is truly sacramental.

2. If someone approaches a Confessor with the intention of deceiving him, mocking him, drawing him into sin, or extorting something from him, he does not accuse himself in order to the Sacrament, and consequently there is no obligation of the sacramental seal.

3. If someone opens his conscience to a Confessor without the will of receiving absolution, but in order to obtain counsel or to satisfy in some manner the command of a Superior, only the obligation of natural secrecy presses, because this is not done in order to absolution.

649. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Is there slightness of matter in a violation of the seal?

Reply. No, at least in direct revelation. The reason is that even the slightest matter includes the whole reason of the precept. - St. Ligorius, no. 635.

I said, at least in direct revelation, because if the danger of indirect revelation is very remote or little probable, lightness of matter can be given. For if some revelation should then perhaps follow, it would have to be judged to follow by chance and per accidens.

650. • QUESTION 2. Is it lawful to use a probable opinion in the matter of the seal?

Reply. No, because it is not lawful to use a probable opinion to the prejudice of a certain right which another possesses, etc. Therefore, the Confessor is bound to the seal even in doubt whether something was said by the penitent in order to confession. - St. Ligorius, no. 633 ¹.

¹ It will be useful to add here what Diana has on this matter (volume 1, treatise 8, at the beginning), in the proem to the Treatise on the Sacramental Seal: Perhaps you will wonder (he says), friendly reader, that in the following Treatise I always embrace the stricter opinions, although in other matters I have willingly adhered to more benign opinions for relieving consciences. But I judged that this should deservedly be done. For lax opinions concerning the present matter render the Sacrament of Penance odious and burdensome, which every right reason demands should be rendered easy and light by us. Therefore, in these matters, when two opinions are present, that one must always be chosen which favors the Sacrament, to whose most holy tribunal penitents are to be attracted rather than withdrawn. Add that, although speculatively speaking many of the opinions written below against the sacred seal are probable, nevertheless, as the opposing Doctors themselves concede,

when they are reduced to practice without sin, one must proceed with such great circumspection that they judge it can scarcely be done without some scandal. Therefore, I rightly think that in this matter Confessors must always hold in favor of the sacred seal.

QUESTION 3. What should a Confessor reply to one asking about things heard in confession or about absolution imparted?

Reply. As regards the first, let him reply, even with an oath interposed if there is need, that he knows nothing or has heard nothing, because he has no communicable knowledge. - Thus all.

As regards the second, let him reply: I have discharged my office; or, Are such questions to be asked? - St. Ligorius, Apostolic Man, no. 148.

1. DEFINITION. —By the seal of confession (sigillum confessionis, secretum sacramentale) is understood the obligation of keeping secret knowledge gained through sacramental confession. ¹ 2. SOURCE OF THE OBLIGATION. —The seal of confession binds the confessor and (per accidens) all others who have knowledge of the matter of a sacramental confession through whatever means. It is absolute and, per se, admits of no exception.

¹ Cfr. H. Busembaum, S.J., Medulla Theol. Mor., 1. VI, tr. 4, c. 3: "The seal is the strictest obligation of divine law in every case, even one in which the safety of an entire kingdom would be endangered, to keep silent—even after the penitent’s death—about everything said in confession, that is, in order to sacramental absolution, whose revelation would render the Sacrament burdensome or hateful." (Ed. Tornac., 1876; Vol. I, p. 573)-

As for the penitent, though not bound by the seal, he is obliged to treat confessional matter as a natural secret, so far at least as the dignity of the Sacrament or regard for the confessor demand.

The obligation of the seal rests on the natural, on positive divine, and on ecclesiastical law.²

² Cfr. Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 495: "There is the strictest obligation to preserve the seal of confession inviolably. This is evident from natural law, indeed under three titles, namely charity, justice, and religion; from positive divine law, at least implicitly, for by Christ’s institution confession must be secret, and therefore by that very fact Christ imposed upon confessors the obligation of preserving the seal; and from ecclesiastical law, as is evident from various passages of canon law, especially from the Fourth Lateran Council, chapter 21, Both Sexes, where it is said: Let him beware altogether that the confessor in no degree betray the sinner by word, sign, or any other manner; but if he needs more prudent counsel, let him cautiously seek it without any disclosure of the person." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 438).

a) The natural law commands silence regarding that which is communicated in confidence. When a man goes to confession, he expects that his secret will be locked in the bosom of the confessor. Hence to keep the seal inviolate is a matter of strict natural duty. In many countries the civil law treats the revelation of any secret communicated in confidence as a misdemeanor. b) The positive divine law demands the inviolability of the seal because it is a necessary condition of the enforcement of the precept of confession. "Confession could not be enforced," says Bishop Linsenmann, "if priests were not bound to the strictest secrecy concerning that which is revealed to them in the confessional. Hence the seal is justified, not only by the interest of the penitent, but by the interest of confession itself." ³ "The divine command to confess one's sins," says Dr. Krieg, "would be an intolerable burden if the penitent were not assured of silence on the part of the confessor." ⁴ c) The law of the Church forbids the revelation of sacramentally confessed sins under severe penalties.⁵

³ F. X. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, p. 220.

⁴ Krieg, Wissenschaft der Seelenleitung, Vol. I, p. 515.

⁵ Codex Iuris Can., can. 889, § 1: "The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore let the confessor diligently beware of betraying the sinner in any degree by word or sign or in any other manner and for any cause." —On the penalties cfr. J. Hollweck, Die kirchlichen Strafgesetze, Mayence, 1899, pp. 332 sqq.; J. Laurentius, S.J., Inst. Iuris Eccles., n. 456, 546.

3. NATURE OF THE OBLIGATION. —The obligation of keeping the seal binds every confessor under pain of mortal sin. It is absolute, i. e., admits of no parvitas materiae, at least directly.⁶ Nor does it cease with the death of the penitent, but binds always and for ever, regardless of the inconveniences that may arise for the confessor, the penitent, a third party, or the common welfare.⁷ The confessor is not allowed to remind the penitent outside of confession of anything he has heard in the sacred tribunal, much less to communicate confessional matter to others. ⁸ In some countries the civil law expressly admits the right, nay upholds the duty of the confessor to preserve the seal of confession, though sometimes with restrictions which Catholic theology cannot approve.⁹ Whether confession made to a priest is privileged in English law is a matter of doubt.¹⁰ In the United States of America the position of the question at common law is the same as in England, but some of the States have made the privilege a matter of statutory law.¹¹

⁶ Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 497: "... at least in direct revelation. The reason is that the matter, even the slightest, contains the whole nature of the precept."

⁷ Gury, op. cit., n. 495: "The obligation of the seal of confession always binds in every case, so that in no possible case is it lawful to reveal anything heard and received in confession. For the obligation of the seal of confession admits no exception, because if any exception could be given, people would always fear that such a sin might be that cause for lawfully breaking the seal, and consequently the Sacrament would become hateful. Moreover, no good to be obtained or evil to be avoided can compensate for the evil of hatred of the Sacrament."

⁸ Cfr. N. Knopp, Der kath. Seelsorger als Zeuge vor Gericht, Ratisbon 1849.

⁹ F. H. Vering, Lehrbuch des Kir chenre elites, 3rd ed., Freiburg 1893, pp. 211, 739 sqq.

¹⁰ Cfr. R. S. Nolan in the Cath. Encyclopedia, XIII, 649 sqq.

¹¹ C. Zollmann, American Civil Church Law, N. Y., 1917, pp. 333 sq.

The penitent may permit the confessor to use knowledge obtained through sacramental confession, provided such permission be restricted to the penitent's own sins, (exclusively, say, of the sins of an accomplice) and no detriment is likely to accrue therefrom to the sanctity of the Sacrament; provided, furthermore, that no scandal be given.

Should a penitent wish to consult his confessor outside the confessional in regard to something mentioned in confession, the confessor may consider this an implicit permission to use his sacramental knowledge.¹⁴

¹⁴ Cfr. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, p. 222.

It is no violation of the seal, though, as a rule, inadvisable for the confessor to mention previously confessed sins in a later confession.¹⁵

¹⁵ Cfr. Gury, Comp, Theol. Mor., II, n. 499: "Can a confessor speak with a penitent about the latter’s confession? He can speak in confession about all past confessions. He can also speak after absolution, before the penitent has departed or if he returns. The reason is that although the Sacrament is complete, the judgment still morally continues. Outside the sacred tribunal he cannot say even a single word to the penitent about matters pertaining to his confession without the penitent’s permission. Except if the penitent himself first speaks about his conscience or if the confessor knows certainly that it will be welcome to the penitent."

The confessor may, if he sees fit, add something to his admonition, immediately after absolution, before the penitent leaves the confessional, and this without special permission of the penitent, because of the moral union with the confession just made.

When a priest is in doubt whether information that falls under the seal has come to him through confession or by some other channel, he is obliged to observe the secretum sacramentale.¹⁶™ 4. THE OBJECT OF THE SEAL. —The obligation of keeping secret knowledge gained through sacramental confession embraces everything that might prove disagreeable or injurious to the penitent or tend to render the Sacrament odious; in particular: a) All sins revealed by the penitent, venial as well as mortal, together with their attending circumstances and the names and deeds of accomplices; b) The penance imposed, and whatever might betray the fact that absolution was denied; c) Physical or moral defects of the penitent, e. g., illegitimate birth, scrupulosity, impatience, in so far as these defects are known to the confessor only through confession; d) Virtues, special graces or prerogatives, the disclosure of which might cause the penitent or others pain or inconvenience; e) The fact that one has gone to confession, if the penitent wishes to conceal it or if his interests demand secrecy.¹⁷

¹⁶ Cfr. St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., 1. VI, n. 633; Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 497: "The confessor is bound by the seal even when it is doubtful whether something was said by the penitent in order to confession."

¹⁷ Cfr. St. Alphonsus, Theologia Mor., 1. VI, n. 640-644; Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 502-504.

The confessor is bound to abstain from all words, signs, or other indications from which the nature of the matter revealed to him in confession or anything that falls under the seal might be inferred. Hence he is not permitted to deny holy Communion to a penitent whom he has refused to absolve, provided, of course, he knows of his unworthiness only through confession, and the penitent demands the Holy Eucharist in the ordinary way.¹⁸

¹⁸ Conc. Lat. IV., c. 21 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 437 sq.)

445. d) The obligation of the seal, which arises from a threefold source, namely, from natural, divine, and ecclesiastical law, is most strict, so that it admits no exception.

Natural law demands the seal, because the penitent does not manifest his sins except under the condition of secrecy. Therefore a quasi-contract intervenes between the penitent and the confessor. Then, from the injury of the seal, great harm would often arise to the penitent. Therefore natural law demands the seal. Nevertheless, from natural law it cannot be strictly proved that the seal admits no exception, although this can be shown to some extent by the following argument:³⁹⁶ A confessor who violates the seal of confession lies. But natural law prohibits lying at any time. Therefore it is never lawful to violate the seal of confession. A confessor who violates the seal seems to lie, because he who affirms something which he does not know commits a lie. But the confessor knows the sins not as a man, but as the vicar of God.³⁹⁷ When, however, he relates them, he no longer acts as the vicar of God, since this would be blasphemy, but as a man. But as a man he does not know the sins; and consequently, if he speaks concerning them, he says something which he does not know and therefore lies.

Divine law, indeed not explicit but implicit, demands the seal. For although Christ explicitly determined nothing concerning the sacramental seal, nevertheless, in instituting the sacrament of penance after the manner of a judgment in which the faithful are bound to accuse their own sins, He implicitly instituted the seal. And in truth, if the most strict obligation of the seal did not exist, confession would often become odious, scandalous, and truly harmful. For if sins heard in confession were manifested, the reputation of the penitent would be endangered, great harm would often arise to him, and social and domestic peace would perish. Therefore Christ, in instituting the confession of all sins, implicitly willed that sins accused in confession be preserved in secret. In the first centuries, indeed, public penance flourished in the Church and at that time produced good fruits because of the fervor of Christians, but today public confession would be dangerous.

Ecclesiastical law. In the Decree of Gratian³⁹⁸ it is stated: "Before all things let the priest beware lest he recount to anyone the sins of those who confess to him.... For if he does this, let him be deposed and let him go on wandering ignominiously all the days of his life."³⁹⁹ The Fourth Lateran Council (a. 1215) thus established: "But let [the priest] beware altogether lest by word or sign or any other manner whatsoever he in any way betray the sinner. But if he should need more prudent counsel, let him cautiously seek it without any expression of the person, since we decree that he who should presume to reveal a sin disclosed to him in the penitential judgment is not only to be deposed from the priestly office, but is also to be thrust into a strict monastery to perform perpetual penance."⁴⁰⁰ The Code of Canon Law, c. 889, § 1, establishes: "The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore let the confessor diligently beware lest by word or sign or any other manner whatsoever and for any cause whatsoever he in any way betray the sinner."

The obligation of the sacramental seal is so strict that neither dispensation nor epikeia can be admitted in it. The penitent alone can grant permission for the confessor to speak concerning the matter of the seal outside confession. Thus the certain and most common opinion, which St. Thomas already taught⁴⁰¹ and which Alexander of Hales,⁴⁰² Scotus,⁴⁰³ and a few others groundlessly denied, teaching that not even the penitent can grant permission to the confessor. According to the present discipline, absolutely no case is given in which it is lawful to make external use of knowledge of sins obtained from sacramental confession. In ancient times several authors excepted certain cases,⁴⁰⁴ but today their opinion is not safe. For Clement VIII, on May 26, 1593, prescribed to religious: "Both superiors existing at the time and confessors who afterward have been promoted to the grade of superior are to beware most diligently lest they use for external governance that knowledge which they obtained in confession concerning the sins of others."⁴⁰⁵ And the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition on November 18, 1682, condemned the proposition: "It is lawful to use knowledge acquired from confession, provided that it is done without direct or indirect revelation and without burden to the penitent, unless something else much graver should follow from not using it, in comparison with which the former is deservedly held of little account."⁴⁰⁶

³⁹⁶ This argument is impugned by Scotus and others.

³⁹⁷ Cf. St. Thomas, l.c., a. 1 ad 1.

³⁹⁸ c. 2, dist. 6, De poenit.

³⁹⁹ That decree is not indeed found in St. Gregory the Great, as Gratian seems to indicate, but something similar was defined at the Second Council of Douzy in the Province of Reims in the year 874: "All clerics as well as laymen or women who confess their sins to priests in secret confession and deplore them with the satisfaction of worthy penance are by no means to be betrayed, and their sins are to be manifested by the priest to no one by any signification whatsoever, except to the Lord alone in secret prayer." Cf. Sebastian Berardi, Gratiani Canones genuini et apocryphi, P. 2, t. 2, p. 179, where other particular Councils are also adduced.

⁴⁰⁰ It is contained in c. 12, X 5, 38.

⁴⁰¹ In 4 Sent., dist. 21, q. 3, a. 2 ad 1.

⁴⁰² S. theol., P. 4, q. 19, membr. 2, a. 3.

⁴⁰³ In 4 Sent., dist. 21, q. 2, n. 18.

⁴⁰⁴ Several older authors, for example, Huguccio; St. Raymond of Penafort (Summa, de poenit. et matr. l. 3, tit. 38, § 60); Alexander of Hales (S. theol. P. 4, q. 19, membr. 2, a. 2); Innocent IV (Apparatus ad 5 libr. Decretal., c. 12, X 5, 38); and Sylvester Prierias (Summa Summ., s.v. "Confessio" III, n. 5), think that the sacramental seal extends only to past sins. But if some penitent in sacramental confession were to reveal that he wished to commit a grave crime, then the confessor could denounce the penitent if no other means of preventing the crime were present. This doctrine seems to have arisen from a text of the Decree of Gratian (c. 8, C. 22, q. 5) accepted too universally and unduly extended to sacramental confession. Cf. Kurtscheid, Das Beichtsiegel, pp. 71 ff.

⁴⁰⁵ Cf. also Code of Canon Law, c. 890.

⁴⁰⁶ Denz., n. 1220.

1489. Principles. - I. There is given a most strict obligation of preserving inviolably the Seal of Confession. It is established 1° from natural law, and indeed by title both of fidelity, and of justice, and of religion, whence it comes about that he who violates it sins gravely by the sin of sacrilege against the Sacrament, of infidelity against the onerous, although tacit, promise of preserving secrecy, and of detraction, if the sin is not public; 2° from positive divine law, at least implicit; for from the institution of Christ Confession must be secret: therefore by that very fact there has been imposed by Christ upon confessors the obligation of preserving the seal; 3° from ecclesiastical law, as is clear from several places of Canon Law, especially from the Fourth Lateran Council, c. 21, Omnis utriusque sexus, where it is said: "Let the confessor beware altogether, lest by word or sign, or in any other way whatsoever, he in any degree betray the sinner; but if he should need more prudent counsel, let him cautiously seek it without any expression of the person." - Yet the confessor is not held to avoid every vain suspicion in this matter, but only a probable one.

II. The obligation of the Seal of Confession always presses in every case, even after the death of the penitent, so that in no possible case is it lawful to reveal anything heard and received in Confession. The reason is manifestly clear; for, if some exception could be given, men would always fear lest such a sin were that cause for breaking the seal licitly; and therefore the Sacrament would become odious. Moreover no cause of attaining good, or of fleeing evil, can compensate for that evil of hatred of the Sacrament. Therefore in this the Sacramental secret differs from the natural secret: that although the latter sometimes arises on the occasion of Confession, nevertheless it does not oblige in every case; but the former can be violated in no possible case, as was said.

III. The obligation of the seal arises from every and only Sacramental Confession, namely that which is made with the mind of accusing oneself and obtaining absolution. It is said: 1° from every, because then the whole reason of the precept is present; and this holds, even if absolution had not been conferred from any cause whatsoever, since Confession is made in order to receive absolution at some time. It is said: 2° from only, because only Sacramental Confession includes the reason of the precept, since any other manifestation has no relation with the Sacrament of Penance.

IV. The obligation of the seal ceases if the penitent has given license to use the knowledge from Confession. But this license ought to be 1° express, 2° altogether spontaneous, 3° not revoked, nor 4° extended beyond the limits permitted by the penitent, 5° with the conditions at the same time preserved which were placed by him, nor 6° should it be asked, unless a reasonable cause demands it.

1490. Resolutions. - 1° A Confession which knowingly is made to a layman, or to a priest lacking jurisdiction, does not induce the obligation of the seal, but only of the natural secret. It would have to be said otherwise if the priest were believed to be approved; because the Confession on the part of the penitent is truly Sacramental.

2° If someone approaches a confessor with the mind of deceiving him, ridiculing him, drawing him into sin, or extorting something from him, he does not accuse himself in order to the Sacrament, and consequently there is no obligation of the Sacramental seal.

3° If someone opens his conscience to a confessor without the will of receiving absolution, and neither in order to making Confession, nor by way of continued Confession, but so that he may obtain counsel, or so that in some way he may satisfy the command of a Superior, only the obligation of the natural secret presses, because this is not done in order to absolution to be given or given already.

1491. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Whether there is smallness of matter in violation of the seal?

Resp. Negatively, at least in direct revelation. The reason is that matter, even the lightest, includes the whole reason of the precept.

I said: at least in direct revelation; because if the danger of indirect revelation is very remote or little probable, there can be lightness of matter. For revelation, if perhaps some followed then, would be judged to follow by chance and per accidens.

Quaer. 2° Whether it is lawful to use a probable opinion in the matter of the seal?

Resp. Negatively, because it is not lawful to use a probable opinion to the prejudice of the certain right which another possesses, etc. Therefore the confessor is held to the seal even in doubt whether something was said by the penitent in order to Confession.

Quaer. 3° What ought the confessor respond to one questioning him concerning things heard in Confession, or concerning absolution imparted?

Resp. As to the first, let him respond, even with an oath if need be, that he knows nothing, or has heard nothing; because he has no communicable knowledge. - Thus all.

As to the second, let him respond: I have performed my office; or: Are questions of this kind to be asked?

III. Root of the obligation. - The obligation of the seal arises from every and only sacramental confession made for accusing oneself to the minister of the Church, as such, or also for obtaining absolution, whether complete or begun, valid or invalid; - even if absolution, for any cause whatsoever, was not granted, or the confession is sacrilegious (for example, without sorrow or purpose), or only supposed (for example, made in good faith before one who does not have power). For since the seal is in favor of the penitent, the obligation of the seal arises from the fact that on his part he placed the things necessary for sacramental confession and ordered it to absolution. Hence the seal does not arise

1. if someone knowingly confesses to a non-legitimate minister, for example, to a layman or a priest lacking jurisdiction;

2. if before a legitimate minister he institutes a simulated confession for another cause, for example, solely for deceiving or mocking the confessor, for obtaining alms or asking counsel, for extorting testimony of confession, or for seducing the confessor, without intention of receiving the sacrament;

3. if in confession he declares something not pertaining to confession, but altogether extrinsic.

In these circumstances there can exist a natural secret; but if someone communicates something to a priest under condition of the seal and the condition is accepted by him, nevertheless there is not an obligation of the seal but a promised natural secret: then namely "he is bound from the promise to conceal it in this way, as if he had it in confession, although he does not have it under the seal of confession" (q. 11, a. 2, ad 2).

621. The first obligation is the sacramental seal. - The seal of sacramental confession is the strictest obligation of keeping under secrecy those things which in sacramental confession, or in order to sacramental absolution, have been declared by the penitent, and the revelation of which would in some way manifest the sin and the sinner, and thus would render the sacrament burdensome or odious. It is called a seal metaphorically from the seal by which we seal letters which we wish to be secret, and it is the obligation of concealing things heard in confession. Briefly, St. Thomas, a. 3: "the seal of confession is nothing other than the debt of concealing confession."

Now, according to can. 889: "the sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore let the confessor diligently beware lest by word or sign or in any other way and for any cause he in any degree betray the sinner," i.e., the person and the sin. Namely, there is the strictest grave obligation of keeping silent outside confession about sins which have been known by sacramental confession, unless the penitent has given permission to speak. This obligation arises from a threefold right: natural, divine, and ecclesiastical.

1. From natural right, because a) between the confessor and the penitent there intervenes an implicit pact, by force of which the latter confesses his sins only under the condition that secrecy be perfectly kept; but this is a committed secret to be kept from justice; b) moreover the natural law prohibits that the reputation of another be unjustly injured.

2. From divine right, because Christ implicitly willed the sacrament of Penance to be ministered in such a way that the faithful would not be deterred from it; but for this it is necessary that confession be secret for secret sins. For he who wills the end wills the means. Therefore Christ willed those things without which confession cannot stand. But confession cannot stand without a strict seal. Therefore.

3. From ecclesiastical right, as is clear from Lateran Council IV, c. 21, and from can. 889 already cited.

Let it be noted: 1) The argumentation of St. Thomas in establishing the thesis can be reduced to this: It is never licit to act against the signification of a sacrament, because this is a violation of the sacrament, and therefore a sacrilege against the reverence owed to it as instituted by Christ. But through confession it is signified that sins are to be covered. Therefore by force of the institution the priest is bound to conceal them. Proof of the minor: Those things which are done exteriorly in the sacraments are signs of those things which happen interiorly: thus confession is a sign of the interior subjection by which someone is subjected to God. But God covers the sins of him who subjects himself, as if they had never been. Therefore also this must be signified in the sacrament of Penance (a. 1).

2. Moreover the doctrine of St. Thomas: "That which is known under confession is as though unknown, since one does not know it as man but as God" (ad 1); hence:

a) "If it is commanded... that he say whether he knows anything about such a sin, he ought not to say it, because he ought to judge that the intention of the one commanding is, if he knows it as man; but this he does not know as man. And even if he should express that he asks about confession, the one questioned ought not to say it..., because he is not subject to his superior except as man; but this he does not know as man but as God" (ad 2).

b) "A man is not brought in as witness except as man, and therefore without injury to conscience he can swear that he does not know what he knows only as God" (ad 3).

c) "But the one confessing can bring it about that the priest knows also as man that which he knew only as God, which he does when he gives him permission to speak; and therefore, if he speaks, he does not break the seal of confession; nevertheless he must beware of scandal in speaking, lest he be regarded as a breaker of the seal" (a. 4).

d) "That which a man knows otherwise, whether before confession or after, he is not bound to conceal as to that which he knows as man; for he can say: I know that, because I saw it. Nevertheless he is bound to conceal it insofar as he knows it as God; for he cannot say: I heard this in confession. Yet to avoid scandal, he ought to abstain from speaking about this, unless necessity is imminent" (a. 5).

622. The nature of the obligation of the seal. - The obligation of the seal is of religion and of justice at the same time: of religion, because the reverence owed to the sacrament demands it, which otherwise would be odious to the faithful; of justice, because it protects the right of the penitent, both to reputation and especially lest he be injured by revealing a committed secret. Hence violation of the seal always imports a twofold malice: of injustice because of the pact entered into with the penitent which has been violated, or also because of the reputation which has been injured; and of sacrilege because of the reverence owed to the sacrament which has been injured. Namely, confession is performed in such a way that this knowledge is exclusively sacramental, since it is made to the priest not as to a man but as to the minister of God, pertaining only to the forum of God and of conscience, and ordered uniquely to the sacrament. Therefore every direct injury to it is sacrilegious, as a direct usurpation of a sacred thing and a profanation.

The seal urges strictly, so that it admits no exception and in no case ever can be relaxed without the certain and wholly free consent of the penitent, who can yield from his own right, since the secret was instituted in his favor; but consent cannot be presumed, but must be given by indubitable signs, explicitly (by words) or implicitly (by deeds), nor must it have been extorted by force, deceit, importunate prayers, or reverential fear, nor afterward revoked.

Hence no end, however good and useful, excuses violation of the seal, whether before or after the death of the penitent, without his permission:

a) neither the good of the confessor, whether temporal, e.g., to preserve life or in self-defense, or spiritual, e.g., that he himself may confess integrally;

b) nor the good of the penitent himself or of a third party, even for avoiding a greater harm,1 e.g., that either one may be corrected or that an innocent person may be declared innocent;

c) nor the good of the republic itself,2 e.g., in the case of a traitor, for preventing the destruction of the republic;

d) nor the good of religion, for preventing that the sacrament of the Eucharist, of Order, or of Matrimony be received unworthily, indeed lest heresy or schism be spread into a part of the Church.

For no cause of attaining good or of avoiding evil can compensate for that evil of hatred toward the sacrament which is altogether necessary for salvation. For it is a question of the spiritual good of the whole Church in preserving the frequenting of this sacrament instituted for the salvation of all, which outweighs every other good.1 Hence also in doubt whether there is present danger of revelation or of breaking the seal, whether it is a doubt of law (e.g., whether something falls under the seal) or of fact (e.g., whether something is already known from elsewhere or was said in order to confession), one must stand for the safer side, because it is not a question of mere uprightness but of spiritual harm to the whole community, to be avoided by all means (II, n. 90-91).

Yet in the case in which the confessor knows that grave harm threatens himself or a third party, or the republic or the Church, he can and must admonish the penitent that through himself or through another he prevent that harm (e.g., by manifesting the guilty person to a superior), and if he refuses to do this, he can deny absolution as to one indisposed; but he will never be able to reveal the secret without the permission of the penitent.

623. The root of the obligation of the seal. - The obligation of the seal arises from every and only sacramental confession made for accusing oneself to the minister of the Church as such, or also for obtaining absolution, whether complete or begun, valid or invalid; - even if absolution, for whatever cause, has not been granted, or the confession is sacrilegious (e.g., without sorrow or purpose), or only thought to be sacramental (e.g., made in good faith before one who does not have power). For since the seal is in favor of the penitent, the obligation of the seal arises if he on his part has placed those things necessary for sacramental confession and has ordered it to absolution.

Hence the seal does not arise:

1. If someone knowingly confesses to a non-legitimate minister, e.g., to a layman or to a priest lacking jurisdiction.

2. If before a legitimate minister he makes a simulated confession for another cause, e.g., solely for deceiving or mocking the confessor, for obtaining alms, or for seeking counsel, or for seducing the confessor, without the intention of receiving the sacrament.

3. If in confession he declares something altogether not pertaining to confession. In these circumstances there can exist a natural secret; but if someone communicates something to a priest under the condition of the seal and the condition is accepted by him, nevertheless there is not present the obligation of the seal but a promised natural secret: namely, then "he is bound by the promise to conceal in this way, as if he had it in confession, although he does not have it under the seal of confession" (a. 2, ad 2).

I say. Hence there is given a most strict obligation of preserving inviolably the secret concerning all those things which have been heard in every and only sacramental confession, and which are referred to the very confession of sins. It is established 1°. from natural law, and indeed both by the title of justice, which demands that a secret committed by implicit pact be closely preserved and that nothing be done toward harming the reputation of the neighbor, and by the title of religion, which absolutely prescribes that nothing can ever be done which would render the sacrament odious. It is established 2°. from positive divine law, at least implicit, for from the institution of Christ confession must be secret. It is established 3°. from ecclesiastical law, as is clear from many places of canon law, especially from the Fourth Lateran Council, c. 21, where it is thus established: "But let [the confessor] altogether beware lest by word or sign or in any other way he betray the sinner in any degree; but if he needs more prudent counsel, let him cautiously seek it without any expression of the person." - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 634 and following. - De Augustinis, part 2, Thesis 21, p. 266.

You Will Resolve. 1°. No exception can ever be imagined by which it would be lawful to reveal anything which is of the nature of sacramental confession; and therefore this secret is called by its own proper name, the seal. The reason is because if any exception could be given, men would always fear lest such a sin fall under that exception, and consequently the sacrament would become odious.

2°. In violation of the seal, at least direct violation, smallness of matter is not admitted, because even the very slightest matter would fall into hatred of the sacrament and consequently includes the whole nature of the precept. - I said at least direct, because if the danger of indirect revelation is very remote or little probable, smallness of matter can be given; for then someone could be accused of imprudence, but not of violation of the seal. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 635.

3°. In the matter of the seal it is not lawful to use probable opinions, because this also would necessarily render the sacrament odious, which is the whole reason of the seal. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 633. - Baller. note (a), p. 629.

4°. Confession which knowingly is made to a layman or to a priest lacking jurisdiction does not induce the obligation of the seal, but only of natural secret. But it would have to be said otherwise if the priest is believed to be approved, because then the confession is truly sacramental on the part of the penitent, which suffices for the nature of the seal.

5°. If someone approaches a confessor with the intention of deceiving him, mocking him, drawing him into sin, extorting something from him, and consequently does not accuse himself in order to receive the sacrament, there is no obligation of the sacramental seal. Nevertheless it is required that such an intention be altogether known to the confessor, and besides that it not be changed while the accusation of sins is being made.

III. QUESTION II. How grave is the guarding of the seal, and whether it be lawful in any case to violate it? ANSWER. Most grave is the guarding of this seal, imposed by a threefold right, as has been said. In no case whatsoever, whether private or public, is it lawful to open it, even if death were to be undergone, or the whole world were imperilled. The matter of this seal is the individual sins, whether mortal or venial, determinately manifested in confession. With the highest prudence and caution is this seal to be guarded.

Caius, a priest, after making his confession to Titius, a priest, asks whether he acted rightly in the following cases. Caius has charge of orphans of both sexes and, when asked to send a fifteen-year-old boy to undertake a certain employment, selected one imbued with evil morals who was corrupting the others, as he knew from confessions, but who was suited to discharge the employment, although others were equally suited; he said to himself that the boy’s absence would benefit both the boy and the other orphans. He was asked by an assistant priest to send a sixteen-year-old girl to serve a married Catholic man who, however, as Caius knew from his confessions, was accustomed to corrupt all young maidservants. Caius denied that he could do this, although there were several suitable candidates. It is asked:

1. What is the secrecy of the seal, and whence does it arise?

2. How is the secrecy of the seal violated?

3. What kind of sin does one who violates the seal commit?

4. What must Titius answer?

The first question was answered above, p. 222.

2. How is the seal of confession violated?

The seal may be violated either directly or indirectly. It is violated directly when the confessor says that such a penitent told him such a sin in confession. It is violated indirectly when the confessor says or does anything, or abstains from saying or doing anything, from which others may come to the knowledge of confessional matter, or by which the penitent may be aggrieved or confession made odious.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 231.

3. What sort of a sin is it to violate the seal?

It is a grave sacrilege against justice and charity, nor does direct violation admit of light matter although indirect violation does when the danger of revelation of confessional matter is slight and remote.²

2 Ibid., 229.

4. What should Titius answer?

Titius should tell Caius that he was not justified in making use of knowledge gained in the confessional to guide him in his treatment of the orphans. In neither case, it is true, did Caius make known anything that he had heard in the confessional, but it might happen that in such a case as the first the penitent would be aggrieved by being sent away from the orphanage, and if it were known that such use was made of the confessional it would make confession more difficult and odious. This test seems decisive: What would be the effect on penitents if they knew that the confessor used knowledge gained from confession in the manner indicated in the first case? If it were taught that such use of knowledge gained in the confessional is lawful, the duty of confession would certainly be made more difficult, and this is a proof that such action is a violation of the seal. In the second case the confessor’s action tends obviously to the displeasure and disadvantage of the penitent. He should have tried to correct his penitent’s morals, and thus safeguard the virtue of his orphans.