The Obligation of the Sacramental Seal

406. Definition of the Seal. The sacramental seal, or seal of confession, is defined: the obligation of the confessor of preserving silence concerning all things known from sacramental confession, the revelation of which would render the sacrament odious. One must treat: a. of the obligation; b. of the subject; c. of the matter; d. of the violation of the seal.

a. The penitent is not bound to the sacramental seal concerning those things which he heard from the confessor, but he is bound to natural and committed secrecy, if their manifestation can bring harm to the confessor. This secrecy binds the penitent more strictly than any other secrecy, both because the confessor is bound by office to give counsels, and because he cannot defend himself if the secret has been unjustly injured. But since experience establishes that penitents willingly speak about those things which occurred in confession, the confessor ought to take care not to say or do anything which he would not want manifested to others.

b. The seal obliges the confessor only toward others, but not toward himself; hence a confessor is indeed worthy of reprehension, but does not act against the seal, who without sufficient reason thinks over within himself matters heard in confession; who casts his eyes from the confessional upon penitents in order to recognize them; who asks others concerning the name of his penitents as such, unless others from this manner of acting suspect some grave matter about the penitent.

g. This obligation is not ineptly called a seal: for just as letters whose object ought to remain hidden are closed and sealed with a seal, so the things said in confession are closed by this obligation and hidden from others.

¹ Schuler, Die Martyrer des Beichtsiegels (Wurzburg: Bucher, 1892). Kurtscheid, Das Beichtsiegel in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung (Freiburg: Herder, 1912).

407. The Obligation Itself. There exists a grave obligation in every case of keeping silent outside confession about those things which are contained under the sacramental seal, unless the penitent has given permission of speaking.

1. The obligation of the seal is twofold: from religion, because reverence due to the sacrament, which otherwise would become odious to the faithful, requires it; and from justice, both by force of the implicit agreement entered between confessor and penitent concerning secrecy to be preserved, and by reason of the harm which the penitent would suffer in reputation if an occult sin were manifested.

a. Wherefore violation of the seal always has a twofold malice, and sometimes even a threefold malice: for it is against religion on account of injured reverence due to the sacrament; it is against justice on account of the tacitly entered contract violated; and sometimes also on account of injury to reputation, when namely an occult delict is manifested.

b. The obligation of the seal arises from a threefold source: from natural law, for there intervenes as it were an implicit agreement between confessor and penitent concerning secrecy to be preserved; moreover the law of nature requires that the reputation of another not be unjustly injured; yet from the law of nature it cannot be proved that the seal must be preserved in every case. From divine law: for Christ the Lord, although not by explicit precept, nevertheless by the very institution of this sacrament prohibited any revelation whatever of those things which pertain to sacramental confession; indeed the obligation of the seal is demanded by the very precept of confession: for he who commands an end also commands the means necessary for the end; but men would never be compelled to confess their sins, even the gravest and occult ones, if they knew that these could ever be manifested to others. From ecclesiastical law:¹ the Church commands the seal to be preserved at all times; nevertheless its obligation primarily arises from divine law. Hence it is that the Church can neither dispense nor change anything in this matter.

2. No case is excepted, so that, to save life or even the republic, those things which fall under the seal can be revealed, either before or after the death of the penitent. a. For if any exception were admitted, the spiritual good of the faithful would suffer harm, because the faithful would always fear the revelation of their sins, and this would draw them away from the sacrament of penance; but no temporal or private or public good exists which must not be preferred to this spiritual good of the faithful. b. Since even after death men would hear confession badly, confession would become very odious if the sins of a dead penitent could be manifested.

a. Hence if a priest should know from confession an evil which threatens another, he can urge the penitent, only under penalty of absolution being denied, that he reveal the matter, or that he give the confessor himself the power of speaking afterward; but if the penitent does not wish this, he can warn him only in general words about the danger, provided all danger of suspicion against the penitent is absent.

b. In this respect the seal differs from a natural secret: a. that the violation of natural secrecy is not a sacrilege; b. that the obligation of secrecy admits smallness of matter; g. that the obligation of secrecy in certain cases also ceases; d. that the obligation of secrecy does not urge toward him who committed the secret.

3. The obligation of the seal prohibits the confessor from speaking outside confession about things heard from confession, not even with the penitent himself; but in other confessions the confessor can, without express permission, make mention of those things which he heard from the penitent in previous confessions. Likewise he can also speak about things heard from confession immediately after absolution has been given, whether the penitent has not yet departed, or has already departed and at once returns, because this is morally said to be in confession.

If the penitent himself begins to speak about the confession, the confessor needs permission to speak by this very fact, but only concerning that matter about which he himself began to speak.

4. The obligation of the seal arises from every and only sacramental confession, or one made in order to obtain absolution (n. 267); for from every and only sacramental confession does the obligation of the seal avail, by which secret things are to be preserved.

Therefore he does not break the seal who narrates those things which he had heard outside confession, although under secret or under the seal of confession, as they say; or even in confession, but done without the will of receiving the sacrament, whether done in order to seek alms or to deceive the confessor. Nevertheless scandal of the faithful must be diligently guarded against, since perhaps they will think the deed was a true confession.

5. In this matter of the sacramental seal one may not use a probable opinion, because here there is question not of the merely licit or illicit, but of spiritual harm necessarily to be avoided for the faithful, who would be drawn away from the sacrament of penance.

Wherefore, both in doubt of fact, whether something was said in order to confession, and in doubt of law, whether some dictum or fact injures the seal, the confessor is bound to the seal, as long as the opinion favoring the seal is truly probable.

¹ C. Omnis utriusque 12, De poenit. et remiss. (V. 38), in which these things are had: "Let him take great care that he does not by word or sign or in any other way in any manner betray the sinner." Cn. 889, 1. A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs an excommunication reserved to the apostolic see in a most special manner, cn. 2369, 1; he who violates it indirectly is to be punished with penalties indicated in cn. 2368, 1.

408. Concerning Permission to Speak. If the penitent has given permission, the confessor can speak about things heard in confession not only with the penitent himself, but also with others; e.g., he can warn the accomplice, because the penitent can free the confessor from the obligation of the seal. Nevertheless, he ought to take care lest someone think that the seal can be violated and suffer scandal.

The obligation of the seal is indeed immediately introduced in favor of the penitent, but principally for the common good, lest the sacrament become odious to the faithful. But although a man cannot renounce a privilege which has been conceded for the public good, nevertheless this is valid only when renunciation tends to public harm; but renunciation in our case does not yield to public harm or to hatred of the sacrament. For if the faithful knew that the confessor cannot speak about things heard in confession except in that case in which the penitent, because he judges it useful to himself, has given permission, the sacrament would in no way be rendered odious to them. - Nor is it said that the penitent cannot take away the obligation of divine law which commands the seal. For the obligation of divine law is not absolute, but conditional: unless the penitent has given permission; therefore the penitent gives that condition by which, when posited, the obligation of divine law ceases.

a. Presumed permission does not suffice, because it could too easily and imprudently be presumed; rather express permission is required, either by word or by deed equivalent to express permission, and it must be entirely free and in no way extorted by force or fear, lest reverential fear exclude it. But if the penitent is bound to give permission and yet denies it, absolution can and must be denied to him, but the obligation of the seal remains.

b. There is a twofold way in which the penitent can give this permission: either he grants permission in such a way that he, to whomever the confessor speaks, is himself not bound to the seal, or in such a way that he is not bound to the seal toward the confessor. But if the penitent grants limited permission, there always remains the obligation of natural secrecy, which the nature of things demands.

Note. Confessors should ask this permission rarely and only in grave necessity, and ordinarily only from those to whom they can safely entrust the matter; for experience establishes that most penitents speak with difficulty outside confession about matters pertaining to confession, and that the very request is already troublesome to them.

I. Existence of the obligation. This is clear first from the fact that Christ, by instituting and imposing confession, must be judged to have imposed on the confessor an obligation without which the reception of confession would be morally impossible. But the obligation of preserving the seal is such an obligation. Add that between the penitent and the confessor there intervenes a tacit contract; to this there is added the obligation of the confessor to preserve the right of the penitent to reputation. Finally, the Church confirms the obligation of the seal and decrees that both direct and indirect violation are prohibited. Thus canon 889, § 1, says: the sacramental seal is inviolable; wherefore let the confessor diligently beware lest by word or sign, or in any other way and for any cause whatever, he betray the sinner in any manner (direct violation).¹ And canon 890 says: the use by the confessor of knowledge acquired from confession, with burden to the penitent, is altogether prohibited, even any danger of revelation being excluded (§ 1).² Both Superiors existing for the time and confessors who afterward have been appointed Superiors can in no way use for external governance the knowledge which they have had concerning sins in confession (§ 2; St. Alphonsus, VI, 635).

Corollary I. The obligation of the seal is of natural law, insofar as it flows from the tacit contract and from the right of the penitent to reputation; of divine-natural law, as it is said,³ insofar as it follows upon the sacrament; and of ecclesiastical law, insofar as it is confirmed by the Church (cf. St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 11, a. 1, ad 2).

Corollary II. The obligation of the seal exists even in doubt: 1. whether some object falls under the seal; 2. whether something is known by sacramental knowledge or otherwise; 3. whether something to be said or done is opposed to the seal. The reason is that otherwise provision would not be made sufficiently for the security of the faithful who confess (St. Alphonsus, VI, 633, 637).

¹ Thus also the ancient law. In the Decree of Gratian (c. 2, dist. 6, De poenit.) it is declared: "Let the priest before all things beware lest he recount to anyone the sins of those who confess to him. For if he has done this, let him be deposed and go about all the days of his life as an ignominious pilgrim." Lateran IV: "Let the priest beware altogether lest by word or sign or in any other way he betray the sinner in any manner. But if he needs more prudent counsel, let him cautiously seek it without any expression of the person, since we decree that one who has presumed to reveal a sin disclosed to him in the penitential judgment is not only to be deposed from priestly office, but also to be thrust into a strict monastery for doing perpetual penance."

² Likewise Clement VIII, May 26, 1593; and the proposition condemned by decree of the Holy Office, November 18, 1682 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1220).

³ There are those who think that such an obligation, which excludes exception, flows from the positive law of Christ.

II. The proximate source of the obligation. The obligation of the seal arises from every confession such that use of the knowledge received from it would turn the faithful away from confession. If the confession is sacramental, the benefit of the seal belongs to it principally; if it is not sacramental, it belongs to it participatively. Hence it arises:

1. From confession made in order to the power of the keys to a priest who can and wills to discharge the office of judge, or to use jurisdiction. Such a confession is certainly sacramental.

2. From confession made in order to the power of the keys: 1. to a priest who enjoys jurisdiction but does not will to use it; 2. to a priest who lacks jurisdiction; 3. to one who is not a priest but is regarded as a priest by the penitent; whether the aforesaid confessions are called sacramental or are not called such. The reason is that the use of knowledge received from a confession of this kind, if it were licit, would at least redound to the detriment of the sacrament, or would turn the faithful away from confession in some measure. But if it is asked whether the said confessions are sacramental, I respond that the first, which is made to a priest who does not will to use jurisdiction merely internally, seems sacramental; as regards the later ones, a reason for seriously doubting is taken from the fact that the objective relation of confession to the sentence to be rendered seems to be lacking.

3. It is disputed whether it arises from confession made to one who is neither a priest nor regarded as a priest by the penitent; for instance if someone thought that a layman could absolve in a case of necessity. Moreover, the negative answer seems to be given, because the use of knowledge drawn from such a confession does not turn one away from confession to be made before a priest.

For the rest, the obligation of the sacramental seal arises from a confession both perfect and only begun, both valid and invalid. It is also the same whether absolution is granted, denied, or deferred.

Corollary I. The obligation of the sacramental seal does not arise from a confession made without the will of receiving the sacrament, but only with the intention of speaking with the confessor, or of mocking or seducing him (St. Alphonsus, VI, 636); nor from a confession made to one who is known by the penitent to lack jurisdiction, because then there is also lacking an accusation made in order to the power of the keys.

Corollary II. The fact that someone manifests something outside confession "under the seal of confession," as they say, and another receives it in that way, cannot effect that something be covered by the seal of sacramental confession (St. Alphonsus, VI, 636). Nevertheless, "someone ought not readily receive something in this way" (St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 11, a. 2).

III. Quality of the obligation. The obligation of the seal is threefold, namely: 1. of religion, insofar as it arises from the signification of the sacrament, and the law has been issued from reverence for the sacrament; 2. of justice from the tacit contract between confessor and penitent; 3. of another species of justice, namely that which commands preserving the reputation of one's neighbor (St. Alphonsus, VI, 635).

IV. Gravity of the obligation.

1. The obligation of the law, insofar as from religion it prohibits direct violation of the seal, or revelation of the sin together with revelation of the sinner, is grave from its whole genus. The reason is that, if small matter were admitted, it would be gravely opposed to the end of the sacrament, since the faithful would be turned away from confession of venial sins, indeed even of mortal sins, fearing that the confessor might take as light what was mortal.

2. The obligation of the law, insofar as it prohibits indirect violation of the seal, is grave from its genus, but in such a way that sufficiently grave matter for constituting grave sin is easily present. Hence:

Under grave obligation there is prohibited: 1. manifestation of a thing closed by the seal together with grave or middling danger of betraying the sinner; 2. use of sacramental knowledge which involves a notable or middling burden of the penitent.

Under light obligation there is prohibited: 1. manifestation of a thing closed by the seal together with danger altogether light of betraying the sinner; 2. use of sacramental knowledge which involves a burden of the penitent altogether light.

There are not prohibited: 1. manifestation of a thing closed by the seal together with a danger of betraying the sinner which does not deserve to be noted; 2. use of sacramental knowledge which involves a burden which is not worthy of note.

V. Cessation of the obligation. The obligation of the sacramental seal, at least insofar as it forbids direct violation, never ceases without the license of the penitent. The penitent, however, can grant license. It is said:

1. The obligation of the sacramental seal, at least insofar as it forbids direct violation, never ceases. This is clear from tradition. The reason seems to be that, on account of the spiritual and common good of the faithful, sacramental knowledge, by the intention and institution of Christ, has been ordered to the sacramental forum alone, or to the good of the penitent, and as such has been altogether withdrawn from the common intercourse of men (St. Alphonsus, VI, 634). It is disputed, however, whether for protecting the seal it is licit to posit an act which, independently of the law of the seal, is intrinsically evil; for instance, whether it is licit for a married priest to use marriage which he certainly knows from sacramental confession to be invalid by natural law. The matter is doubtful to me; while the doubt stands, however, one may act according to one's pleasure.

2. Without the license of the penitent; and that license freely, expressly, and certainly granted, and not revoked. Presumed license is judged not to suffice, because confessors can be deceived in this matter, so that the sufficiency of presumed license would render confession odious. For the rest, license can be granted explicitly and implicitly, for instance by the very fact that the penitent begins to speak outside confession about a matter of itself closed by the seal. Nevertheless, let the confessor beware lest he extend the concession beyond the intention of the penitent. Besides this, the penitent can revoke the granted license according to his or her pleasure. Finally, note that license of this kind is not to be sought except for a grave cause, and only from those whose consent can certainly be expected to be altogether free (St. Alphonsus, cited place).

3. The penitent can grant license because the seal has been imposed in his or her favor, and the penitent can renounce that favor.

Corollary I. One who has known something by both sacramental and extra-sacramental knowledge licitly uses the extra-sacramental knowledge; nevertheless let him proceed prudently and avoid scandal (St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 11, a. 5; St. Alphonsus, VI, 638, 4).

Corollary II. One who is questioned about a matter closed by the seal should of himself repel the questioner. But if otherwise he cannot with sufficient certainty repel suspicion against the penitent, let him answer, even with an oath, that he knows nothing. "A man," says St. Thomas, "is not brought in as a witness except as man, and therefore without injury to conscience he can swear that he does not know what he knows only as God" (St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 11, a. 1, ad 3). And thus he can say or swear, even if "he has been asked to answer not as man but especially as a minister of God," indeed even if "he is additionally asked to answer without equivocation" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 646).

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.

652. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Is the penitent also obliged by the seal with respect to the Confessor?

Reply 1. He is not bound to the sacramental seal, because the obligation of the seal is only in favor of the penitent.

Reply 2. But he is bound to natural secrecy concerning those things which he cannot reveal without unjust harm to the Confessor, or contrary to his reasonable will, or without injury and contempt of the Sacrament. - St. Ligorius, no. 647.

QUESTION 2. Can the Confessor speak with the penitent concerning the latter's confession?

Reply 1. He can speak in confession about all past confessions ³.

³ Understand this if some grave cause requires it. For even within confession, unless a long habit of confessing to the same priest has introduced a certain familiarity between him and the penitent, it is ordinarily burdensome to penitents that the memory of sins which they confessed at other times be renewed. Indeed, it is still less profitable, nor is it pleasing to penitents, that after a long time the Confessor appear mindful of old sins; and, on the contrary, it is profitable that the Confessor, as a minister of God, display in himself what is said of the Lord God himself: You have cast all my sins behind your back (Isaiah 38:17); and, He will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea (Micah 7:19); and, I will remember their sins and iniquities no more (Hebrews 10:17).

Reply 2. He can also speak after absolution before the penitent has departed, or if he afterward returns. The reason is that, although the Sacrament is complete, the judgment nevertheless still morally continues.

Reply 3. Outside the sacred tribunal he cannot speak even one word with him, without the penitent's permission, concerning those things which pertain to his confession. Except the case in which the penitent himself first speaks about his conscience ⁴. - St. Ligorius, no. 651.

⁴ That is, if he speaks of those things which were the matter of confession; for not every discourse introduced by the penitent about matters of his conscience grants the faculty of speaking about all the things heard from him in confession. Indeed, the Confessor ought not go beyond the matter about which the penitent spoke.

497. Principle: There is the strictest obligation, under grave obligation, of keeping silent outside confession about sins which have been known by auricular sacramental confession, unless the penitent has given permission to speak. It is certain. - This obligation as to substance arises from natural and divine law, but it was more explicitly determined by ecclesiastical law.

(a) From natural law. Between the confessor and the penitent there exists an implicit pact, by force of which the latter confesses his sins only under the condition that they be kept entirely secret: this is an entrusted secret, which all those who by force of their office furnish counsels to others, for example, advocates and physicians, are bound from justice to keep; therefore whoever violates this secret, of itself sins gravely against justice. - Besides, the confessor, by revealing the sins which he knows from confession, unjustly harms the reputation of the penitent, whenever at least this sin of his remains occult.

498. (b) From divine law, at least implicit. For although Christ said nothing explicitly on this matter, He certainly willed the sacrament of Penance to be administered in such a way that the faithful would not be kept away from it. But if occult sins entrusted to the confessor were manifested, many of the faithful would be kept away from the sacred tribunal: for with reason they would fear lest, by such manifestation, they should lose the esteem of others, especially of parents, relatives, and friends; often the peace of families would be disturbed, if the secret delicts of one spouse were manifested to the other, or if the sins of parents became known to the children, etc.; indeed, sometimes the knowledge of certain crimes would come to the ears of judges, with the greatest danger and harm to penitents. All these things would often render confession odious, scandalous, and truly harmful. Therefore Christ, in instituting the sacrament of Penance, implicitly at least willed that occult delicts declared in confession be kept under the most secret seal.

499. (c) From ecclesiastical law. The law of sacramental secrecy is ancient, and coeval with auricular confession, although from the beginning it was not so strictly observed. As long as public confession flourished, there was no obligation of keeping silent about sins publicly accused. But whenever occult sins were privately accused, the law of secrecy was in force.

Thus St. Ambrose, according to the testimony of Paulinus,¹ spoke to no one except the Lord alone about sins which penitents themselves had confessed secretly; likewise St. Augustine says that secret sins must be corrected secretly:² "In secret we ought to correct, in secret to reprove; lest, wishing to reprove publicly, we betray the man"; St. Leo reproves, as contrary to the apostolic rule, the practice of reading publicly the occult delicts accused in confession, "lest many be kept from the remedies of penance, while they either are ashamed or fear that their deeds be disclosed to their enemies, by whom they could be struck according to the constitution of the laws";¹ but Sozomen, describing the qualities with which the penitentiary, whose office was to hear confessions, ought to be adorned, says that he ought to excel in taciturnity and prudence;² but why in taciturnity, unless that he might keep occult delicts under the seal?

¹ Migne, P. L., t. XIV, 40.

² Serm. 82, cap. 8, ap. Migne, P. L., t. XXXVIII, 511.

¹ Ep. 168 ad Episcopos Campaniae, ap. Migne, t. LIV, 1211.

² Sozom., H. E., lib. VII, c. 16, ap. Migne, P. G., t. LXVII, 1458 sq.

But an explicit and universal law concerning keeping secrecy was enacted by the Fourth Lateran Council,³ and renewed in the Code, can. 889; indeed, from can. 2369, a confessor directly violating the seal incurs an excommunication reserved in a most special manner to the Holy See; but one who violates it only indirectly "is to be suspended from the celebration of Mass and from hearing sacramental confessions, or even, according to the gravity of the delict, is to be declared incapable of receiving them"; and he is to be punished by the other penalties ferendae sententiae indicated there.

³ Ap. Denzing., n. 363.

Finally, by the sense of the faithful and of confessors, and by the consent of theologians, the law of secrecy has become most strict, so that today every revelation which would render confession odious is to be carefully avoided.

500. Corollaries. (a) Violation of the seal imports a twofold, and sometimes threefold, malice: against religion, or against the reverence due to the sacrament; - against justice, by revealing an entrusted secret; - often also against justice in another way, by manifesting the occult delict of one's neighbor.

(b) A law of this kind is so strict that in no case can it be relaxed without the free and certain consent of the penitent. The penitent can indeed freely yield his own right, since the secret was instituted in his favor; but consent cannot be presumed; it must be given explicitly or implicitly by signs free of doubt. Moreover, the confessor will use rarely and prudently even consent freely given, lest confession be rendered odious to others who do not know that this consent was given.

501. Hence no end, however good and useful, excuses violation of the seal:

1. Not the good of the confessor himself, whether temporal, since the confessor ought rather to die than to wound the seal, following in the footsteps of St. John Nepomucene, who, on account of sacramental silence invincibly kept, was adorned with the palm of martyrdom;¹ - or spiritual, since he is excused from the material integrity of confession when he cannot declare his sins integrally without wounding the seal; yet this rarely occurs, since more often a confessor can be found to whom the penitent is unknown. The reason is that the public spiritual good of the whole community, for which, according to what has been said, the custody of the sacramental seal is necessary, must be preferred to private good, whether temporal or even spiritual.

¹ Cf. Breviar. Rom., For some places, May 16.

2. Nor the good of the penitent himself; for example, if from his confession it is known to me that he is innocent, I cannot declare it, lest perhaps, when I affirm that one is innocent and keep silent about another, it be understood that this other is guilty. - Nor the good of a third person: for example, if by the confession of Paul the murderer I have known that Peter is not guilty of the homicide, I cannot say this, lest perhaps suspicion arise that I speak thus from violation of the seal, and Paul himself be accused of the crime.

3. Nor the good of the commonwealth itself, for example, in the case of a traitor, because by the inviolable custody of the seal, in a general way, the good of the commonwealth is better provided for than by its violation; moreover, spiritual good is to be preferred to temporal good. Hence a confessor, questioned before a tribunal about those things which he has known by confession, can and ought, even with an oath, to say that he knows nothing concerning this matter: for this is a restriction which all can understand, if they wish, since it is known that it is not lawful for confessors to reveal a secret entrusted to them.²

² In many States the sacramental seal is recognized by civil law as inviolable, and there it is sufficient for confessors to declare that they cannot answer anything, since they are bound by the seal or professional secret: thus in France. But in certain others, for example, in England (cf. Stephen, Comment. on the Laws of England, London, 1895, vol. III, p. 579), this privilege is by no means recognized; and therefore confessors must say that they know nothing. - In the United States of America, the common law is the same as in England, but in certain States, particular law favors the seal.

Nevertheless, in all these cases, the confessor who knows by confession that grave harm threatens himself, or some private person, or the commonwealth, can and ought to warn the penitent that he prevent that harm by himself or through another, for example, by manifesting the matter to a superior; and he can deny absolution to one refusing to do this, as one indisposed; but he himself cannot reveal the secret without the free permission of the penitent.

(c) Likewise the obligation of keeping secrecy is so strict that in this matter it is not lawful to follow merely probable opinions; because here there is question not of the lawful alone, but of spiritual harm to the whole community which must necessarily be avoided. Therefore, whether there is question of probability of law, for example, when it is disputed whether this or that falls under the seal; or of probability of fact, for example, when it is doubted whether something was known from confession or in some other way, the opinion favoring the seal must be followed, even if the other is truly probable.

502. (d) Nevertheless this obligation arises only from a truly sacramental confession, that is, one made in order to obtain absolution, but not from a simulated confession, made to ask for alms or to seduce the confessor, without the intention of receiving the sacrament: for the reasons adduced above have force only concerning sacramental confession. - But even in this case, only for a grave cause ought the confessor to use knowledge acquired in this way, for example, in defense of himself, if he has been unjustly denounced to the Bishop by a person to whom alms were deservedly denied; for scandal of the faithful, who perhaps think that the confession was truly sacramental, must be guarded against insofar as this can be done.

Hence also those things which, outside confession, are manifested to a priest for the sake of spiritual direction do not fall under the sacramental seal, but only under an entrusted secret, though generally a most strict one.

443. a) Notion of the seal. The sacramental seal, or the seal of confession, is the strictest obligation of preserving secrecy concerning all those things which were said by the penitent in order to sacramental absolution and the revelation of which would render the sacrament burdensome or odious. This definition, commonly given by theologians, will be explained more fully in treating the subject, matter, obligation, and violation of the seal.³⁸⁹

b) The primary subject of the seal is indeed the confessor; but secondarily all those who (fortuitously or deliberately, legitimately or illegitimately) heard something from a sacramental confession;³⁹⁰ but not the penitent himself.

Therefore the following are bound to the seal: a man who hears confessions while pretending that he is a priest;³⁹¹ a confessor who is consulted, even outside the sacrament of penance, concerning sins accused; one who reads the written confession of another, at least if it is found in the hands of the confessor or in the proper place of confession, that is, in the place where the confessor sits;³⁹² an interpreter employed for the confession; those standing near the confessional who by chance or deliberately hear the things which are accused; the superior from whom the faculty of absolving from reserved cases is sought; a counselor to whom the case is referred with the permission of the penitent. Thus at least more probably.³⁹³ Although the penitent himself is not bound by the sacramental secret, because the seal was introduced in his favor and not in that of the confessor, nevertheless he is bound by the natural and entrusted secret concerning those things which the confessor said to him in confession, if harm would arise to the confessor from their revelation. And in truth, a penitent who speaks concerning the statements of the confessor often acts exceedingly unbecomingly and illicitly, since the confessor, bound by the seal, can in no way defend himself. Nevertheless, since experience testifies that penitents not rarely speak concerning things heard in the tribunal of penance, the greatest prudence is necessary for the confessor, lest he say anything which could cause inconvenience to himself.

³⁸⁹ St. Thomas briefly says: "The seal of confession is nothing other than the duty of concealing a confession" (In 4 Sent., dist. 21, q. 3, a. 4, sol. 3). Bertrand Kurtscheid, O.F.M., learnedly treats the history of the seal of confession in Das Beichtsiegel in seiner geschichtl. Entwicklung (Freiburg, 1912).

³⁹⁰ Code of Canon Law, c. 889, § 2.

³⁹¹ Concerning this matter St. Thomas writes: "The seal of confession belongs to the priest insofar as he is the minister of this sacrament.... Nevertheless, just as someone who is not a priest in some case participates in the act of the key when he hears a confession because of necessity, so he participates in the act of the seal of confession and is bound to conceal it, although, properly speaking, he does not have the seal of confession" (In 4 Sent., dist. 21, q. 3, a. 1, sol. 3).

³⁹² Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 650.

³⁹³ Cf. St. Thomas, l.c., and a. 2 ad 4; St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 648.

St. Thomas, Supp., q. 11.

I. The sacramental seal, or seal of sacramental confession, is the most strict obligation of preserving under secrecy those things which in sacramental confession, or in order to sacramental absolution, have been declared by the penitent, and whose revelation would in some way manifest the sin and the sinner and 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 says (a. 3): "the seal of confession is nothing other than the debt of concealing confession."

According to can. 889: "The sacramental seal is inviolable; wherefore let the confessor diligently beware lest by word or sign or in any other way and for any cause whatsoever he in any way betray the sinner," that is, the person and the sin. Namely, there is a most strict obligation under grave obligation of being silent outside confession concerning sins which are known by sacramental confession, unless the penitent has given permission to speak. This obligation arises from a threefold right, natural, divine, and ecclesiastical. It arises

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

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 driven away 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 the Fourth Lateran Council, c. 21, and from canon 889 cited above.¹

¹ The law of the seal, in the primitive Church, was not declared with the same rigor as it is now customarily done. For satisfaction was fulfilled publicly, even for occult delicts, or absolution was also given publicly; which at first sight could seem incompatible with the law of the seal. But the faithful at that time did not urge it so strictly, nor did they see its incompatibility with the publicity of penance, from the fact that publicity took place in the family and that we are all sinners, as Tertullian says. Penance at that time was a social thing, not an individual thing. Hence in the case there was no unjust defamation; otherwise even in confession itself defamation could have seemed to be present, especially because they were not yet accustomed to confess venial sins.

Moreover let it be noted that 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 sacrilege against the reverence owed to it as instituted by Christ. But by confession it is signified that sins are to be covered. Therefore by force of institution the priest is bound to conceal them. The minor is proved: Those things which are done outwardly in the sacraments are signs of those things which occur inwardly: thus confession is a sign of the interior subjection by which one is subjected to God. But God covers the sins of him who subjects himself as if they had never been. Therefore this also must be signified in the sacrament of Penance (q. 11, a. 1).

Moreover note the doctrine of St. Thomas: "That which is known under confession is as if unknown, since someone does not know it as man but as God" (a. 1, ad 1). Hence

a) "if it is commanded... that he say whether he knows something concerning such a sin, he must not say, because he must judge that the intention of the one commanding is: if he knows as man; but this he does not know as man. And, even if he were to express concerning confession, when questioned he must not say..., 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 adduced into testimony except as man, and therefore without wound of 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 know also as man that which he knew 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 judged 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. Yet he is bound to conceal it insofar as he knows it as God; for he cannot say: I heard that in confession. Nevertheless, for avoiding scandal, he must abstain from speaking about this, unless necessity is imminent" (a. 5).

II. Nature of the obligation. - The obligation of the seal is of religion and justice at once: 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 that he not be harmed by revealing a committed secret. Hence violation of the seal always imports a twofold malice: of sacrilege on account of wounded reverence owed to the sacrament, and of injustice on account of the violated pact entered with the penitent, or also on account of harmed reputation.

The seal urges strictly, so that it admits no exception, and in no case ever can be relaxed without the certain and entirely free consent of the penitent, who can yield concerning his right, since the secret was instituted in his favor; - which consent cannot be presumed, but must be given by indubitable signs explicitly (by words) or implicitly (by deeds), nor extorted by force, deceit, importunate prayers, or reverential fear, nor afterwards revoked. Yet the consent need not be spontaneous, but can be sought by the confessor for a grave cause.

Hence no end, however good and useful, excuses violation of the seal, whether before or after the death of the penitent, without his permission: neither the good of the confessor, whether temporal (for example, to preserve life or in defense of himself) or spiritual (for example, that he himself may confess integrally), - nor the good of the penitent himself or of a third party (even for avoiding a greater damage,² for example, that one or the other be corrected or an innocent person be declared), - nor the good of the commonwealth itself³ (for example, in the case of a traitor, for guarding against the destruction of the commonwealth), - nor the good of religion (for impeding lest the sacrament of Eucharist, Order, or Matrimony be received unworthily, indeed lest heresy or schism be spread into a part of the Church). For no cause of obtaining good or avoiding evil can compensate that evil of hatred toward a sacrament altogether necessary for salvation. Indeed it concerns the spiritual good of the whole Church in preserving the frequentation of this sacrament instituted for the salvation of all, which outweighs every other good.⁴

² Thus Innocent XI, 18 Nov. 1682.

³ Clement VIII, 26 May 1593.

⁴ Therefore natural secrecy differs much from the seal, 1) because its lesion of itself is not sacrilege; 2) because of itself it admits lightness of matter; 3) because its obligation can cease in certain cases.

Hence, even in doubt whether there is danger of revelation or of breaking the seal, whether it is a doubt of law (for example, whether something falls under the seal), or of fact (for example, whether something is already known from elsewhere, or was said in order to confession), one must stand for the safer part, even if the other is more probable, because it does not concern honesty alone but the spiritual damage of the whole community, to be avoided by all means.

Yet in the case in which the confessor knows that grave damage is imminent to himself, or to a third party, or to the commonwealth or the Church, he can and must admonish the penitent that by himself or through another he impede that damage (for example, by manifesting the guilty person to the superior or by turning the accomplice away from the delict), and to one refusing to do this he can deny absolution as indisposed; but he will never be able to reveal the secret without the permission of the penitent.

VIII. Observations. - 1. In ecclesiastical law, according to can. 1757, § 3, as incapable of bearing testimony are repelled: "priests, as regards all those things which have become known to them from sacramental confession, even if they have been loosed from the bond of the seal; indeed things heard by anyone and in any way on the occasion of confession cannot be received even as an indication of truth."

2. According to can. 2369: a) A confessor who has presumed directly to violate the sacramental seal incurs by that very fact an excommunication reserved in a most special manner to the Apostolic See.

b) But he who has violated the seal only indirectly is liable to penalties ferendae sententiae, the same as confessors soliciting to shameful things (can. 2368, § 1), namely suspension, or even inability to receive confessions, deprivation of benefices, dignities, and active and passive voice, indeed, in the graver case, degradation.

c) Rash, and therefore conscious, violation of the seal by an interpreter or by all others to whom knowledge of confession has in any way come, is established to be punished, according to the gravity of the guilt, by a salutary penalty (ferendae sententiae), which can even be excommunication.

3. Lest the seal be broken indirectly, it is always better to answer in the same way. Thus, when questioned concerning sins, let him say that he has heard or knows nothing; - when questioned concerning absolution given, let him say: I have performed my office, or: should such questions be asked?; - when questioned concerning Communion to be ministered (for example, in a hospital), let him say: ask the penitent whether he wishes to communicate.

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).