The Object of the Sacramental Seal

The object or matter of the seal is all things known from confession which, according to what was set forth in n. 430, carry with them the obligation of the seal, and whose revelation or use would render confession more difficult. Therefore the object of the seal is:

I. Mortal sins, both in species and in genus, namely that such a penitent has sinned gravely.

II. Venial sins, both in species and in some other manner at least somewhat determinate, for instance by saying that such a penitent declared a venial sin in this confession (St. Alphonsus, VI, 640). It is otherwise if he said only that the person had at some time sinned venially.

Notorious sins also are matter of the seal: both because the confessor, insofar as he knows something as God, must always be silent; and because the liceity of manifesting a notorious confession would render confession more difficult, since penitents would easily fear that the confessor might take as notorious what was not notorious. There is added the fact that the said sins, by the declaration of the confessor, would commonly be rendered more notorious and more certain.

III. The causes, object, and circumstances of sins; for example, the blasphemies of the father on account of which the penitent was angry, or the homicide concerning which he rejoiced. If, however, the matter concerns a public fact, the penitent commonly is not judged to close it by the seal (St. Alphonsus, VI, 641, doubt 2).

IV. An accomplice and his or her sin; for the liceity of revealing these things would render confession more difficult (St. Alphonsus, VI, 640). It is licit, however, with the license of the penitent, to admonish the accomplice (St. Alphonsus, 641, doubt 1).

V. The penance imposed, unless it is very slight (St. Alphonsus, Homo Apostolicus, tr. 16, n. 153).

VI. Natural and moral defects are the object of the seal: 1. if they are manifested by the penitent for explaining sins; 2. probably, if they become known to the confessor from the penitent's manner of confessing or acting, and are odious or occult; but not if they are not odious and are public, such as stammering, deafness, blindness. For in this case, contrary to the former ones, no burden to confession would arise from manifestation (St. Alphonsus, Homo Apostolicus, tr. 16, n. 154; VI, 642, 643).

VII. The condition and status of the penitent are to be judged in the same way as defects. Hence it is not matter of the seal that someone is unmarried, married, a magistrate, a workman. Nevertheless, let the confessor beware lest he speak of these things in such a way that he suggests that the penitent has sinned against the obligations of his or her state (St. Alphonsus, cited place).

VIII. Scruples are the object of the seal; for they are declared by the penitent as sins, at least doubtful ones. Likewise scrupulosity, insofar as it designates, as commonly happens, a confused and wavering conscience, is the object of the seal, and this holds even if the scrupulosity is publicly known; for it is an odious defect, or one which is a cause of shame (St. Alphonsus, VI, 644).

IX. Virtues and gifts are not the object of the sacramental seal, unless "they are spoken of in order to explain some defect or one's own ingratitude toward God" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 641). This, however, does not prevent them from being able to be the object of a non-sacramental secret.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. the indisposition of the penitent;

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

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

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

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

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

3. the confession itself and the conferral of absolution;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. the indisposition of the penitent;

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

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

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

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

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

3. the confession itself and the conferring of absolution;

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

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

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