The Matter of the Seal

The matter of the seal can be distinguished as essential and accidental; the essential is either direct or indirect.

411. Direct Matter. Directly, all sins, both mortal and venial, even public ones, constitute the matter of the seal, unless they are known to the confessor from another source.

a. Mortal sins are indeed manifested whether in species or only in general, e.g., Titius confessed grave sins; but venial sins, if they are manifested in species, not likewise if they are manifested only in general, unless it is said that someone confessed many or graver venial sins; for by the very fact that someone confessed, he is supposed to have confessed at least venial sins, and therefore this can be troublesome to no one. Therefore, just as it can be said without injury to the seal: Titius confessed, so it can be said: Titius confessed venial sins only, or confessed his venial sins. Therefore it is not against the seal if the confessor says of his penitent that he lives so innocently that he scarcely commits venial sins.

b. If it were licit to manifest publicly known sins, penitents would always fear lest confessors consider their sins publicly known and therefore reveal them. Therefore he who says of a notorious thief that he confessed his thefts with great contrition injures the seal; but he who says only that he confessed his sins does not injure the seal, because he does not say that he sinned mortally, nor does he manifest any venial sin in species.¹

c. If the confessor speaks about those things which are known to him from elsewhere, he does not manifest the things heard in confession itself; yet he ought to take care lest from the things heard in confession he confirm things less certain or complete things less accurate.

¹ Reuter, n. 378, 16.

412. Indirect Matter. Indirectly, all those things which are said for declaring sins constitute the matter of the seal, whether they are necessary for this end or only useful or even superfluous, unless they are publicly known facts, even if until now unknown to the confessor or to others; therefore circumstances of sins, objects, accomplices. For since Christ prescribed the seal so that confession not be rendered odious to the faithful, and since the revelation of these things would be unwelcome to the faithful, from the will of Christ all these things must be closed under the seal. Nevertheless, publicly known facts are excepted, even if previously unknown to the confessor, because their revelation can be burdensome to no one.

a. Circumstances are such things as occasions, end, and other circumstances connected with sins. Thus, if a spouse confesses that he boasted of nobility, the nobility is matter of the seal. Likewise imposed penances are under the seal, unless they are such as are customarily imposed only for the lightest faults, because from them it can be gathered that the penitent confessed a mortal sin or several venial sins.

Denied absolution is matter of the seal; therefore not only does he violate the seal who says that he denied absolution on account of indisposition, but also he who says only that he did not absolve such a person, because others rightly suspect indisposition from this. If the confessor is asked about denied absolution, let him answer: I have performed my office; or: there is nothing for me to answer to this question. Nor is it licit for the confessor to say that he did not give absolution, even if there is question of a public sinner, indeed even if the sinner himself says that absolution was denied to him, unless he says it in those circumstances in which by that very fact he grants permission for saying this.¹

The counsel which is sought from the confessor pertains to the matter of the seal if the request has a connection with sacramental confession, as if someone seeks means by which he can correct a defect declared in confession.

b. Objects of sins, even declared after absolution, if, e.g., someone says that he despised his father because of his tenacity, or that he spoke about the adultery of Titius, the tenacity and adultery fall under the seal.

c. The sins of an accomplice, even if they were revealed without necessity, as if someone in confession says: I committed theft with my brother. Therefore it is not licit for the confessor to warn or correct the accomplice without the permission of the penitent. The penitent indeed can grant this permission, because the penitent alone, not also the accomplice, has the right to the seal; nevertheless it is rarely expedient for the confessor to assume the office of correcting the accomplice, even if he is asked by the penitent, because correction can rarely be made without danger of scandal.²

d. If someone confesses that he omitted Mass in order to see soldiers arriving, this fact does not fall under the seal.

¹ Cf. Lacroix l. 6, pr. 2, n. 1965.

² Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 492.

413. Accidental Matter. Per accidens, all those things known in confession constitute the matter of the seal whose revelation would yield to the burden of the penitent and to hatred of the sacrament: defects either of body or of soul, and sins committed in the confession itself.

a. Natural defects are matter of the seal, not only when they are said for explaining a sin, but also if they are known from confession alone and are otherwise unknown. Thus scrupulosity is matter of the seal, both if it is manifested in confession as a moral defect or for declaring sins, and also if it becomes known to the confessor from the manner of confessing, while it is unknown to others. There are indeed those who say that natural defects otherwise unknown, if they are not manifested for explaining a sin, are matter only of natural secrecy; but assent seems to be given to the authors who count them as matter of the sacramental seal. And indeed if the confessor detects certain defects from the manner of confessing which the penitent otherwise can and is accustomed to conceal, confession would plainly be rendered odious if the confessor could reveal them. But defects which are already commonly known do not constitute matter of the seal, because the penitent cannot take it ill if the confessor speaks about them. From these things one can judge how far it falls under the seal that the penitent is hard of hearing, of slow or stubborn mind, of irresolute and troublesome nature, and such like.¹

b. Sins committed in the confession itself, e.g., impatience and insults against the confessor himself, are not matter of the seal if they are not accused; but per accidens they usually fall under the seal, because someone could suspect that the confessor either did not wish to absolve the penitent or reprehended him more severely on account of graver faults. Theft committed by the penitent to the harm of the confessor at the time of confession does not fall under the seal; and if it were established that the thief approached confession only so that he might have an occasion of stealing, the sins accused by him would not be matter of the seal, because the confession would not be sacramental.

¹ Cf. Tamburini, Methodus confessionis, Appendix de sigillo, c. 2, n. 13, 17 ss.

414. The Matter of the Seal Is Not those things heard in confession or connected with confession whose revelation does not yield to the burden of the penitent or to hatred of the sacrament; nevertheless, according to the nature of the matter, they can fall under natural secrecy.

a. The gifts of God and virtues per se are not matter of the seal, even if they are manifested in confession in order to declare the state of the soul to the confessor, because their revelation cannot render confession odious. Therefore confessors can and are accustomed to manifest the virtues and gifts of their penitents after their death for the effect of beatification. But virtues and gifts can be matter of natural secrecy if it is established that penitents would bear their manifestation with difficulty, and they fall under the seal if they are manifested to explain some sin, e.g., ingratitude toward God or inconstancy in good.

b. Absolution conferred is not matter of the seal; therefore he who says that he absolved such a person does not break the seal. Nevertheless, one must altogether abstain from this manifestation, especially in those circumstances in which this manifestation becomes burdensome to others, because the same cannot be said about them. If parents, teachers, and masters imprudently ask confessors about absolution given to sons, pupils, or subjects, they must be referred to the penitents themselves.

c. Access to confession is not matter of the seal, because it is known outside confession and is not per se something odious. Therefore he who says: Titius confessed to me, does not violate the seal; but if someone has approached confession secretly, the confessor is bound to conceal this by natural secrecy.

d. That whose knowledge the penitent does not bear with difficulty, such as condition or state, e.g., that the penitent is a priest, parish priest, soldier, married, unmarried, does not pertain to the object of the seal, because its revelation is not burdensome to the penitent, even if it was manifested to declare sins, since there is question of a publicly known state, even if until now unknown to the confessor, provided no suspicion of sin arises. But although the confessor can speak freely about this matter, it is always dangerous to say that he knows it from confession, because the faithful easily suffer scandal and fear lest confessors also speak about those things which penitents manifested in confession.

Note. Nevertheless, even concerning those things which do not properly fall under the seal, a prudent confessor, if he has received them in the confessional, will preserve silence, so that he may avoid scandals, which can scarcely be avoided from narrating those things which were said in the confessional.

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.

§ 1. 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 whatsoever he betray the sinner in any degree (Can. 889).

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.

I say. Primarily and of itself every confessor is held to the seal, whether true or fictitious and thought legitimate through error, as was just said and is clear of itself.

§ 2. By the obligation of preserving the sacramental seal there are also held the interpreter and all others to whom knowledge of confession shall in any way have come (Can. 889).

For if from the confession itself the matter accused has come to their knowledge, then the cause or occasion of this knowledge is already the same as that on account of which the obligation of the seal is directly imposed; and consequently the same reason for preserving the secret urges. But if from the means, then the hatred of the means would necessarily redound into the end itself. - Hence there are held to the seal 1°. interpreters spontaneously employed in performing confession; 2°. superiors, from whom outside the sacrament the faculty of absolving or of receiving absolution from a reserved case is sought; 3°. those who hear a sin while someone is confessing, whether deliberately or even inculpably, and likewise if some should perhaps hear it from these; 4°. all those to whom the confessor sacrilegiously or imprudently had manifested sins heard in confession. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 647 and 648.

You Will Resolve. 1°. The confessor is held to the seal in such a way that outside the sacred tribunal he cannot even converse with the penitent himself about his sins without the penitent's permission. I said outside the sacred tribunal, for it would have to be said otherwise if the penitent has not yet departed, even if absolution has already been given; indeed, even if he has departed and immediately returned, because the same judgment morally perseveres. The confessor can also speak in the very confession about past confessions, provided nevertheless that a grave reason is present and it is done discreetly, so that it does not appear that a vivid memory of sins already remitted is being preserved. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 651. - Baller. note (a), p. 631.

2°. He who reads a paper on which the penitent wrote his confession is not of himself held to the seal, because the paper of itself alone is not an actual confession, but only preparation for it. - Therefore knowledge received from reading it, since it is had without any participation in the sacramental act, does not of itself bring in the obligation of the sacramental seal, but only of natural secret, which of itself urges under grave obligation unless there is question of the very lightest faults. - I said of itself; for by accident the obligation of the seal can be present, namely if the paper actually served for confession or for performing those things which are of confession, for example, if it were directed to a superior on account of some reservation; likewise if it had already been offered or handed over to a priest by a mute person who would use it; but especially if you read it while it is in the hand of the confessor or is employed in the act of confession; indeed even, according to Cardinal de Lugo, if you read it after absolution, left in the confessional, because in these cases it pertains to confession. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 650. - Lugo, disp. 23, n. 48.

3°. A doctor consulted by the penitent himself is not held to the seal if he is consulted concerning a confession to be made to another, because the obligation of the seal arises only from sacramental confession. - Nor should you say that from a revelation of this sort confession becomes odious; for St. Alphonsus answers that hatred then falls upon the consultation alone, but not upon confession. - I said nevertheless if he is consulted concerning a confession to be made to another; for if the penitent consults him concerning a confession to be made to him himself, the obligation of the seal urges, since this consultation must be held as an inchoate confession. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 649. - Suarez, disp. 33, sect. 4.

4°. The penitent is not held by the seal with respect to the confessor, because the obligation of the seal is only in favor of the penitent. But he is held to natural secret concerning those things which he cannot reveal without unjust harm of the confessor, or against his reasonable will, or without injury and contempt of the sacrament. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 647.

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.

You Will Resolve. 1°. Under the seal of confession fall: 1°. all circumstances of sins, even declared after absolution; 2°. the sins of an accomplice, even if they had been revealed without necessity together with a sin, because they were said from the intrinsic occasion of confession; 3°. penances imposed, unless perhaps they are very light or from those which are usually imposed for the very lightest faults; 4°. defects manifested through confession for explaining the nature of a sin, for example, if the penitent says that he received sacred Orders with an irregularity because he is illegitimate, etc. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 640.

2°. The virtues of the penitent and the other extraordinary gifts of God do not fall under the seal if they are manifested in confession so that the state of the soul may become known to the confessor; but it would have to be said otherwise if they were manifested for explaining some sin, for example, one's own ingratitude toward God. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 641. - Lugo, disp. 23, n. 58.

3°. The scrupulosity of the penitent is certainly an object of the seal: 1°. when it is accused as a moral defect, insofar as the penitent prone to scruples has not striven to correct himself; 2°. when it becomes known to the confessor from the fact that the penitent, deceived by a false or scrupulous judgment, confesses many things as sins which are not such. On the contrary, scrupulosity certainly is not of itself matter of the seal if by this word you understand that the penitent has a delicate conscience, because this would rather fall to his praise, especially if he is a layman and occupied with secular affairs. But it is controverted whether scrupulosity falls under the seal insofar as it is a physical defect known in confession; namely, if you say that the penitent is prolix, produces weariness by his manner of speaking, and similar things. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 641.

4°. Natural defects of the penitent, for example, that he is deaf, stammering, poor, ignorant, lame ... fall under the seal if the confessor knows such defects from the declaration of the penitent, or insofar as they were manifested for declaring sins and their revelation in some way would be burdensome or troublesome to the penitent; because then they both have a connection with confession and their declaration would render the sacrament odious. But it would have to be said otherwise if the confessor knew those defects only incidentally. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 642.

5°. Sins committed in the confession itself, for example, of impatience or insult against the confessor, do not fall under the seal, because they are not accused, as is supposed; but by accident they are for the most part matter of the seal, because they furnish a probable judgment that the confessor either did not wish to absolve the penitent or more severely rebuked him on account of a graver fault, etc. But a theft committed by the penitent to the harm of the confessor himself at the time of confession would not fall under the seal. Indeed, if it were established that the thief had come 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.

6°. The very approach to confessing is not matter of the seal, both because it is some fact public of itself and is recognized externally outside confession, and because of itself it is not something odious, but rather brings praise; and consequently he who says that he heard such a person in confession of himself in no way violates the seal. Note nevertheless that the confessor certainly is held to natural secret if he knows that someone secretly approached to confess; indeed sometimes by accident he can gravely violate the seal, namely by bringing upon others the suspicion of grave sin. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 638.

7°. Almost the same thing must be said about the conferring of absolution, and consequently of itself he who says that he absolved such a person does not break the seal; for of itself such speech cannot be burdensome. Nevertheless, because saying this could in certain circumstances become burdensome to others concerning whom the same thing cannot be said, one must altogether abstain from such manifestation. Therefore parents, teachers, masters, asking about absolution given to children or subjects, are to be referred to the penitents themselves. Nuns occupied with the care of the sick in hospitals are accustomed to make similar questions, 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 better, permission should be sought from the sick person to warn the Nuns or others. But it will suffice to say to the sick person: I shall warn, etc.

The seal can be violated in a twofold way: 1°. directly, by expressly revealing something pertaining to the secrets of confession, for example, if it is said: Titius did this, etc.; 2°. indirectly, by saying or doing something from which someone could know or suspect a sin or defect of the penitent known in confession alone, or from which shame, annoyance, disgrace, harm, or any burden whatsoever could arise for the penitent or for others, for example, accomplices. Direct revelation, God's providence so disposing, scarcely ever, or perhaps never, has place; but what certainly must be lamented, indirect revelation is not altogether rare. Hence:

I say. He indirectly violates the secret of confession:

1°. Who, praising one above others whom he has heard, says that he committed only venial sins; because others from this are easily led into suspicion of mortal fault.

2°. Who speaks with others, who know this from elsewhere, about the sin of a penitent known through confession alone, even if the hearers do not notice that it was received from confession.

3°. Who says that he did not absolve such a person, that he sent him back to such a time, or that he has not yet absolved him, or that the confession has not yet been completed.

4°. Who says of Titius, known as a thief, that he confessed his thefts to him with great contrition.

5°. Who rebukes a penitent in a loud voice or in another manner intelligible to those standing around; for this is both grave for the penitent and brings upon others the suspicion that he confessed grave sins; but a fortiori if by lifting his voice too much he should repeat the sins of the penitent or interrogate about their circumstances.

6°. Who speaks with another confessor about the sins of some penitent, even if that penitent confessed the same sins to each.

7°. Who, after hearing the confessions of a few, says that he heard such a sin, although he conceals the person; for individuals from that revelation suffer some suspicion against themselves.

8°. Who, narrating the sins of some person which he knew outside confession, adds some circumstance known from confession alone, or who uses knowledge of confession for determining or confirming the matter more.

9°. Who would say that he heard a grave sin in such a monastery, even if he did not name the person; because individual Religious of that convent suffer detriment. A fortiori he would violate the seal who would say that in that convent such sins are committed. - But otherwise if he said that he had heard a grave sin of some Religious in general, without naming his Order, because it is neither a revelation of the seal, nor does it redound to the burden of the penitent or of any Order, since among various Orders some less good Religious are not lacking.

10°. Who after confession looks at the penitent with a grim eye, does not speak to him as he was accustomed to do before, and shows by harsher words, gestures, or his whole manner of acting, that he remembers his sins, actually thinks about them, and makes less of him than before.

Nevertheless it must be noted here that often confessors can be excused at least from grave violation, indeed sometimes from any violation whatsoever of the seal, but they cannot be excused from scandal. Therefore, apart from the utility of instruction or of seeking counsel, one must abstain from those narrations which, however they could be had with impunity if they are recalled to theological principles concerning violation of the seal, nevertheless beget scandal among lay hearers, especially simple ones. - Cf. Synod of the Diocese of Novara III, n. 67.

Question 1. Whether he breaks the seal who says that such a vice reigns in such a city or village, or that grave crimes are committed there?

Resp. Affirmatively, if the place is sufficiently narrow, for example, if it does not consist of about three thousand men. But otherwise it would have to be answered if the town is ample and public crimes are perpetrated there rather often. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 654.

Question 2. Whether preachers can use knowledge of confession for speaking about those things about which they would not have thought unless they had heard confessions?

Resp. "There are not lacking ... sometimes ministers of this salutary sacrament who, although all things which could in any way betray the person of the penitent are kept silent, do not fear rashly to make speech, either in private conversations or in public sermons to the people (for the edification, as they say, of the hearers), concerning things submitted in sacramental confession to the power of the keys. But since in a matter of so great weight and moment it is necessary most studiously to avoid not only a perfect and consummated injury, but even every appearance and suspicion of injury, it is clear to all how much a custom of this sort is to be reproved. For although this may be done with the sacramental secret substantially saved, nevertheless it certainly cannot avoid offending the pious ears of the hearers and exciting distrust in their minds. And this indeed is altogether foreign to the nature of this sacrament, by which the most merciful God, most mercifully, by the pardon of his own goodness, entirely wipes away and altogether forgets the sins which we have committed through the frailty of human conversation." Thus the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 9 June 1915.

Question 3. Whether a priest who knows from confession that snares are being prepared for him can flee or in another way forestall harm?

Resp. Affirmatively, if from such caution the sin accused is in no way manifested to others, nor any burden brought upon the penitent. - But it must be answered negatively if he cannot flee without in some way manifesting that some sin was accused by the penitent. The reason is because that flight would be an indirect revelation of the sin confessed; and although the confessor might feign flight from some pretext, nevertheless he would always furnish a reasonable suspicion of a sin declared. Yet Cardinal de Lugo here warns that experience shows that revelation, even indirect, is never necessary for escaping those dangers, since either from the permission of the penitent or by other modes these can be met without breaking the seal. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 659. - Lugo, disp. 23, nn. 108 and following.

Question 4. Whether superiors can use knowledge of confession for external governance, if in no way it appears that they direct themselves from that knowledge?

Resp. § 1. The use of knowledge acquired from confession with burden to the penitent is altogether prohibited to the confessor, even every danger of revelation being excluded.

§ 2. Both Superiors existing for the time being and confessors who afterward have been appointed Superiors can in no way use knowledge which they have had concerning sins in confession for external governance (Can. 890).

Question 5. Whether at least sometimes, and when, the confessor can use knowledge of confession?

Resp. According to all theologians he can do this in the following cases: 1°. for praying for the penitent, or for acting more benignly toward him; 2°. for consulting books or wise men, yet prudently, the danger of revelation being excluded; 3°. for directing himself through experience acquired from confessions, for example, for tempering rigor and for directing himself from the confession of one person toward prudently interrogating or instructing others, giving no suspicion of the prior confession; 4°. for reforming his own morals, for correcting his own defects, or for better performing his office, for example, for putting off sluggishness, because each person is held to correct his own defects as soon as he notices them; nor can any penitent reasonably be offended because the confessor, on account of things heard in confession, changes his life for the better. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 657.

What is the proper place of confession?

Resp. The proper place of sacramental confession is a church or a public or semi-public oratory (Can. 908).

§ 1. The confessional seat for hearing the confessions of women is always to be placed in an open and conspicuous place, and generally in a church or public or semi-public oratory destined for women (Can. 909).

§ 1. Confessions of women are not to be heard outside the confessional seat, except from cause of infirmity or of some other true necessity, and with precautions employed which the Ordinary of the place has judged opportune.

§ 2. It is lawful to receive the confessions of men even in private houses (Can. 910).

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.