The Seal of Confession

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Cn. 889, 2.

² Cn. 1757, 3, n. 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Cn. 889, 2.

² Lehmkuhl, Casus consc. II, n. 563.

³ Cf. Lugo, disp. 23, n. 47.

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Reuter, n. 378, 16.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Cf. Lacroix l. 6, pr. 2, n. 1965.

² Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 492.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

415. Modes of Violating the Seal. 1. The seal can be violated in a twofold way, directly and indirectly.

a. It is violated directly if the sin accused in confession and the person of the penitent are manifested.

For direct violation of the seal it is required that the person of the penitent either be named expressly, e.g., Titius committed homicide, Peter was not absolved; or that he be so perfectly designated from the circumstances that he can certainly be known, although unknown to the hearers and never to be known by them, e.g., the prefect of such a city committed adultery. These words: the first today confessed adultery contain a direct violation of the seal if the hearers know him; otherwise, however, an indirect violation, more culpable in proportion as the danger of knowing the person of the penitent is greater.

In order that the seal be violated directly, it is not necessary that the hearers know that the confessor is speaking about matters heard in confession, but it suffices that he in fact does this.

b. It is violated indirectly if from those things which the confessor says or does there arises danger of knowing the sin of the penitent or of rendering the sacrament odious.

In order that the seal be violated indirectly, it is not necessary that the person of the penitent from those things which the confessor says or does be actually known, or that suspicion actually be suggested about him; but it suffices that this can happen by a prudent suspicion.

2. Direct violation of the seal does not admit smallness of matter, but indirect violation admits it. The reason for the first is that even through injury of the seal in light matter a grave injury is done to the sacrament; for the faithful would be greatly drawn away from it if they knew that confessors could reveal venial sins without grave sin, since they would always fear lest they judge grave sins to be venial and manifest them. The reason for the second is that indirect violation of the seal consists in the danger, from the sayings or deeds of the confessor, of knowing a defect of the penitent or of rendering the sacrament odious; but this danger can be very slight; therefore violation of the seal can also be slight.

Whether by some saying or deed the seal is violated indirectly is sometimes difficult to determine. The principle which ought to be kept before one's eyes is this: he who reports sins heard in confession, without naming the person, does not injure the seal unless there underlies danger of coming to knowledge or suspicion of the person, nor unless hatred of the sacrament arises. There are especially three things by which the sacrament is rendered odious: if from the sayings or deeds (omissions) of the confessor there arises suspicion of sin or defect of the penitent, defamation either of a community or of the penitent, or burden of the penitent.

a. He who, after hearing few penitents, reports some sin declared by one of them in confession injures the seal, because some suspicion arises concerning each, if the penitents are known to those to whom the sin is narrated.

b. He who says that he heard a grave sin in such a monastery injures the seal; likewise, he who says that he heard a grave sin from a religious of a determined order injures the seal if the order is not numerous and is of intact reputation, because some infamy redounds to the whole community or to the whole order and therefore to the penitent himself insofar as he is a member of the community or order. But the seal is not injured if the order is very numerous, especially if it is also of relaxed discipline, provided the danger of suspicion concerning some monastery in particular is excluded, because no one suffers detriment of reputation, neither a determinate person nor the order.¹

c. He who says that such a crime is rampant in some place, which he knows from confession, injures the seal, unless the crime is public or the place is very large (at least 3000 inhabitants); for from a revelation of this kind infamy redounds to the individual inhabitants if the place is small, but it does not redound if it is large.

d. A parish priest who, from the knowledge of confession, communicates with missionaries about which vices in the community especially need correction does not injure the seal if the vices are common or the place is sufficiently large. If the community is small (e.g., a small community of nuns) or the vices belong to a few, the seal is injured, because individuals are exposed to suspicion, or the hearers are affected with shame over their own defect.

¹ Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. II, n. 469 (n. 600); Casus consc. II, n. 551 ss.

416. Concerning the Use of Knowledge Received from Confession. St. Alphonsus wisely warns that the confessor should proceed cautiously, since in these matters every danger either of revelation or of burdening the penitent must with difficulty be avoided. Something else also must be carefully guarded against, namely that those who easily suspect and fear injury to the seal should not be scandalized. Therefore attention must be paid to three things, lest the use of knowledge from confession be illicit: a. that there be no danger of revelation; b. that no burden of the penitent or hatred of the sacrament arise; c. that no suspicion of a violated seal, and therefore scandal, be suggested to others.

1. It is never licit to use knowledge received from confession if there is danger of revelation, or if, even without any revelation, confession is thereby rendered odious, although from the non-use of it a far greater evil of the penitent would follow. And this indeed is not licit whether the penitent notices or does not notice that this is being done because of the sin accused by him; for the faithful would be drawn away from the sacrament of penance if they knew that confessors are permitted to use the knowledge of confession to the burden of the penitent, when neither the penitent nor others notice it.

a. Superiors cannot use knowledge of confession for external government, even if outwardly this appears in no way; for if the faithful knew that this is licit for superiors, confession would be rendered odious to them.¹ Therefore it is not licit to remove an unworthy man from office, which is a source of sinning for him; to deny suffrage in elections; to deny sacraments, unless it concerns a public sinner; or to change an arrangement, even one conceived only in the mind and not yet communicated to anyone.

b. If the confessor knows from confession that someone is of bad conscience, troublesome, or indisposed, he cannot on that account excuse himself from hearing his confession; for if penitents notice this manner of acting of confessors, they will manifestly be drawn away from the sacrament. He can, however, without injury to the seal excuse himself under another true pretext.²

c. Lest confessors be exposed to danger of breaking the seal, they are not to be questioned, e.g., by parents or teachers, about the morals of their penitents, nor are they to be consulted where there is question of someone to be promoted to orders or admitted into religion, etc.; they should testify only to the frequentation of the sacraments.

2. It is licit to use the knowledge of confession if there is no danger of revelation and no burden of the penitent by which confession would be rendered odious. And this indeed is licit whether the penitent notices that it is being done because of the sin accused by him or does not notice it; for if the use of knowledge received from confession is not burdensome to the penitent, confession cannot from it become more difficult, whether the penitent notices the use or does not notice it. Moreover the actions in which use of this kind is contained can either be concerned with the confessor himself or can be referred to the penitent.

a. From the knowledge of confession the confessor can: alpha. reform his own morals, perform his office better, watch over subjects more diligently, with the danger of revelation nevertheless excluded; beta. pray for the penitent, for the confessor uses the knowledge of confession before God, which is not illicit, and act more kindly toward him, even if the penitent notices that it is done because of his confession, since this cannot be unpleasant to him; gamma. consult books or theologians, with danger of revelation excluded; delta. direct himself from this knowledge, e.g., by prudently questioning or instructing others, toward tempering rigor, toward guarding himself from dangers of spiritual or temporal harm, which he knows penitents to have undergone; epsilon. warn others generally, e.g., that they should guard themselves or watch carefully, with danger of revelation nevertheless excluded.

b. Preachers can speak of those things of which they would not have thought unless they had heard confessions; but they must take care not to speak publicly about the particular sins of one or another penitent, especially before a small community, because this could easily be troublesome to the penitent. Thus, for example, a confessor of nuns can preach about defects which are commonly committed in the monastery, but not about some particular defect of some nun.

c. If a priest knew from confession that ambushes were being prepared for him, or that the wine which he uses for Mass had been infected with poison, it would not be licit for him to flee or omit Mass where from his flight or omission others could conjecture that the penitent conscious of the matter had confessed that sin, or the penitent would suffer harm or burden. Moreover, in order to save life the confessor could ask permission from the penitent to allow the indirect manifestation of the sin which would follow from the flight or omission. If the penitent, even unjustly, refused to give this permission, he would be unworthy of absolution; but the priest could not flee or omit the sacred rite.

d. A priest cannot without the penitent's permission dismiss a servant or take keys away from a servant whom he knows from confession to be unfaithful; for this manner of acting contains a certain reproach of the penitent and therefore brings him a burden. Whether in the confession itself he can command the servant to return the key or to depart of his own accord is disputed. Elbel affirms it, because he can command everything without which the penitent is not capable of absolution; Lugo denies it, because the command is not an act pertaining to confession, since it is not a necessary means of amendment.

Note. The confessor can do everything which he ought to do and which he would have done even if he had not heard the confession, namely what his office, ordinary diligence, and vigilance require, although from the things heard in confession he takes occasion for doing it and now would not have done it if he had not heard the confession. It is better, however, to warn the penitent about this matter, lest he take scandal, thinking that the seal is violated. But without the penitent's permission it is not licit for a confessor to do something on account of things heard in confession which otherwise he would not have done, if from it either danger of manifestation or burden of the penitent can arise. The event must be awaited which will furnish a new motive for doing what until now was not customarily done.

¹ Cn. 890. There exist on this matter two decrees of the holy see: one of Clement VIII, May 26, 1593, which forbids regular superiors to use knowledge received from confession for external government. Lugo rightly notes, disp. 23, n. 93, and after him St. Alphonsus, n. 656, that the decree is to be extended to all confessors, even if they are not superiors, in relation to any penitents whatsoever, even seculars, because the supreme pontiff in this decree does not establish a particular law but declares the divine law concerning sacramental secrecy. Therefore the opinion of the ancients must be corrected, that it is licit to use knowledge received from confession if this can be done without danger of manifesting the penitent's sin, that is, provided others cannot suspect anything about the penitent. The other decree, issued by the Holy Office by command of Innocent XI on November 18, 1682, pertains to all confessors and forbids the use of the knowledge of confession with burden of the penitent, even when the penitent by the use of it is freed from a greater burden or evil, especially from sin. Therefore this principle of the ancients must be corrected: it is licit to use the knowledge of confession when the penitent cannot be reasonably unwilling, e.g., when the use of sacramental knowledge is necessary to remove the penitent from sin. From this principle they permitted that the confessor close the doors, lest the servant whom he knows from confession to be going out to sin be able to go out.

² Cf. Lugo, disp. 23, n. 117.

417. Concerning a Certificate of Confession to Be Given or Denied. a. A certificate of confession should show nothing except testimony that confession was made on such a day, but not testimony that absolution was given, about which nothing should ever be added in the certificate. If, however, a printed certificate imprudently showed testimony of absolution, and such a certificate, on account of the seal, would have to be handed even to one not absolved, it would simply have to be handed over, or even signed, without anything being deleted, even if absolution had been denied; for that act of handing over, or signing, such a certificate does not seem to be a lie.

b. If absolution was denied to an indisposed penitent who made a sacramental confession: alpha. the certificate of confession is to be given if he asks outside confession; for if in this case it were denied, the confessor outside confession would use the knowledge of confession with burden of the penitent. beta. The certificate is to be given if he asks in confession and the denial is equivalent to an indirect violation of the seal, which happens when others, from the very denial of the certificate, come to knowledge of the denied absolution and therefore either of indisposition or of a reserved case in the penitent, as if, when those confessing are in a public place, a certificate is given to others and denied to one. gamma. A certificate of confession can be denied if he asks in the confession itself and the denial is not equivalent to indirect injury of the seal, because others come to knowledge of the denied absolution not from the very denial of the certificate but afterward; for just as the seal is not broken because absolution was denied, even though others come to knowledge of it, e.g., from the fact that he abstains from holy communion, so also the seal is not broken because a certificate was denied, even though others, from the fact that he does not bring a certificate, come to knowledge of the denied absolution. But when a reasonable and just cause exists, the certificate in this case can also be given, because sacramental confession was made.

c. If the penitent did not make a sacramental confession, but only simulates confession, or if he asks for a certificate in order that, without confessing, he may show it to a teacher or parish priest, e.g., before marriage, it is altogether to be denied; for on the one hand there is here no danger of injuring the seal, which does not arise except from sacramental confession, and on the other hand the confessor, because he gives the certificate, lies and easily cooperates in an unworthy reception of the sacrament of the Eucharist or of matrimony.

Note. Concerning a confessor needing counsel. If a confessor in a difficult case needs counsel: a. let him have recourse to a theologian to whom the penitent is altogether unknown; b. if this cannot be done and there is danger of revelation, let him ask permission from the penitent to speak with another about a matter pertaining to the confession; or c. let him propose the case in such a way that he avoids danger of revelation, that is, as fictitious, omitting all non-necessary circumstances and mixing in other false ones which do not change the substance of the matter; d. if he does not have permission and cannot in any way avoid the danger of revelation, after diligence in study and prayer has been applied, let him solve the knot by his own judgment.

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

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

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

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

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

The person who hears the sacramental confession of another made with a view to obtaining absolution is primarily bound by the seal. Even if such a person were not a true priest, but merely represented himself to be one, he would, nevertheless, be bound by the obligation of the seal, for he could not violate the trust placed in him without such violation injuring the penitent and turning people away from the sacrament.

Not only the priest, but all others, who mediately or immediately come to know anything confessed to a priest with a view to absolution, are bound by the obligation of the seal. Superiors, then, who are asked for faculties to absolve from reserved cases, other confessors whose advice is asked about cases of conscience, anyone who by design or by accident overhears what is said in confession, are bound equally with the confessor... The obligation of the seal is imposed in favour of the penitent; it is the penitent’s secret, but he himself is not bound by it. It does not follow, however, that penitents may without let or hindrance talk to others about what the confessor has said or done to them in the confessional. They are at least bound by a natural obligation to reveal nothing which would tend in any way to injure or aggrieve the confessor. A confessor may speak with the penitent in the confessional about past confessions in as far as this is necessary for the present guidance and instruction of the penitent; but outside of confession he may not speak of confessional matter even to the penitent without the latter’s express leave freely given. There is a question discussed among theologians as to whether one who finds and reads the written confession of another violates the seal or is bound by it. It is better to distinguish various cases. If the circumstances in which the paper is found show that it has been used for the purpose of making a sacramental confession, as when it is found in the confessional, then the written confession is a sort of continuous confession, and knowledge derived from it comes under the seal. The same must be said of a letter written to an ecclesiastical superior for faculties to absolve from a reserved case. Otherwise, inasmuch as the writing down of one’s sins is not sacramental confession, knowledge gained from such a source without reference to actual confession does not seem to come under the seal.

Similarly, there is a difficulty about giving or refusing to the penitent an attestation that he has been to confession. If the penitent is unworthy of absolution and has not been absolved, but asks for the confessor’s attestation that he has been to confession, what is the latter to do ?¹ If the refusal of the attestation would in the circumstances show that. the penitent was not absolved, it is clear that it cannot be refused without a violation of the seal; in other circumstances the confessor will be free to give or refuse it.

¹ Can. 889.

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

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

The seal may be broken directly or indirectly. It is broken directly when the confessor says that such a penitent told him such a sin in confession, It is broken indirectly when the confessor says or does anything or abstains from saying or doing anything from which others may come to the knowledge of confessional matter, or by which the penitent may be aggrieved or confession made odious. A confessor, then, indirectly violates the seal by changing his conduct to the detriment of the penitent in consequence of what he has heard in confession; by saying that a certain sin is rife in a place in which he has heard few confessions; by talking with another confessor about the sins of a penitent of both of them.

It used to be a common view among theologians that ecclesiastical superiors might use knowledge gained in hearing confessions for external government, provided that in such use there was no direct or indirect revelation of confessional matter. After the decree of Clement VIII, May 26, 1593, and that of the Holy Office, November 18, 1682, this opinion has become obsolete, and now it is universally held that no knowledge gained in the confessional can be used by the priest for external government if such use aggrieves the penitent, or makes the sacrament odious, or otherwise directly or indirectly violates the seal (Can. 890).

In spite of the strictness of the seal the confessor may make use of knowledge gained in the confessional to correct his own faults, to treat his penitents and others with more kindness, to learn by experience how better to fulfil his duties as confessor, how to preach more fruitfully, but always with prudence and without giving any just cause of complaint to his penitents. i.

Canon 2369 IV. Confessarium qui sigillum sacramentale directe violare praesumpserit, manet excommunicatio specialissimo modo Sedi Apostolicae reservata; qui vero indirecte tantum, obnoxius est poenis [suspensionis a celebratione Missae, et ab audiendis sacramentalibus confessionibus vel etiam pro delicti gravitate inhabilis ad ipsas excipiendas declaretur, privetur omnibus beneficiis, dignitatibus, voce activa et passiva, et inhabilis ad ea omnia declaretur, et in casibus gravioribus degradationi quoque subjiciatur. (A confessor who presumes to violate the sacramental seal directly lies under an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See in a most special manner; but one who violates it only indirectly is liable to the penalties of suspension from celebrating Mass and from hearing sacramental confessions, or may even, according to the gravity of the offence, be declared unfit to hear them; he is to be deprived of all benefices, dignities, and of active and passive voice, and declared unfit for them all, and in graver cases he is to be subjected to degradation as well.)] Only a confessor who with full knowledge of the crime which he is committing, and of its penalty, directly violates the seal of confession and incurs ipso facto excommunication very specially reserved to the Holy See. The penalties assigned by the Code in punishment of others besides confessors, and of confessors who presume to violate the seal indirectly, are ferendae sententiae.

The law of the sacramental seal¹ can be taken in a broad and in a stricter sense. Taken in a broad sense, it is the law which forbids the use of sacramental knowledge which is of a nature to redound to the burden of the penitent, and therefore, if it were licit, would render confession more difficult. I said "which is of a nature," etc., because it does not matter whether the penitent notices the use or not; it suffices that in itself it involves a burden.

Taken in the stricter sense, it is the law which forbids the use of sacramental knowledge together with manifestation, or danger of manifesting the penitent.

The prohibited use of sacramental knowledge, or violation of the sacramental seal, is distinguished as twofold: direct and indirect (cf. can. 2369, § 2). Direct violation is the use of knowledge acquired from confession together with manifestation of the sinner. Wherefore observe that it is not required that the person of the penitent be known, but it suffices that the person be sufficiently determined; for instance, if I say concerning a person meeting me and unknown to you that he or she confessed this or that. Indirect violation is judged to be the use of knowledge acquired from confession which has annexed to it the danger that the sinner be betrayed, or which involves a burden of the penitent with or without danger of manifestation of the sinner.

These things having been noted, we shall speak first of the obligation, then of the object, then of the subject of the sacramental seal, and finally we shall deduce certain corollaries from the things set forth.

¹ So called because that law covers the things heard in confession as with a seal.

I. The sacramental seal is violated:

1. By one who either reproves the penitent in a loud voice or questions the penitent about sins.

2. By one who speaks about the sin of someone with another confessor, even if the penitent confessed that same sin to both.

3. By one who, for example, says about a notorious homicide that he confessed the homicide.

4. By one who, after hearing the confessions of a few, says that he heard such a sin.

5. By one who praises one penitent before the rest whom he heard by saying that the penitent confessed only venial sins (St. Alphonsus, Homo Apostolicus, tr. 16, n. 156).

6. By one who says that he heard a grave sin in such a convent; for then individual members of that convent, and therefore also the penitent, suffer detriment. If someone said the same about such an Order, it depends on the circumstances whether a grave, light, or almost no burden is created, and therefore whether there is grave, light, or no violation of the seal. Namely, it must be considered: 1. whether the Order is numerous; 2. whether it is notoriously relaxed or not; 3. before whom that is said; 4. whether suspicion falls upon the inhabitants of a few houses (cf. St. Alphonsus, VI, 654, doubt 2).

7. By one who without the permission of the penitent speaks with the penitent outside confession about things heard in confession.

8. By one who after confession looks upon the penitent with stern eyes, does not speak to him as he had previously been accustomed, and so forth. Likewise by one who, on account of things heard in confession, would dismiss a servant, or take keys away from him, or remove money from a chest lest he steal it. Likewise by one who, on account of things known from confession, would deny a vote to someone (St. Alphonsus, VI, 657). Likewise by one who, on account of sins declared in an earlier confession or on account of a defect of disposition then revealed, would refuse to receive someone's confession (St. Alphonsus, VI, 659).

Question 1. Whether one violates the seal who from the confession of the penitent has known that snares are being laid for him, and without the license of the penitent uses the knowledge received for his own defense.

Response. Affirmatively, if, for example, accomplices could suspect that that sin had been accused by the penitent, or if some other burden would come to the penitent from it. For the liceity of directing oneself in this way, without the license of the penitent, from the knowledge of confession would turn the faithful away from confession (St. Alphonsus, VI, 659). If the penitent threatens to inflict death on the confessor at an opportune time unless he is absolved, the confessor can avert the danger of death, because by doing this he neither betrays the sin of the penitent in any way, as is supposed, nor does the liceity of acting in this way render confession itself odious.

Question 2. Whether one violates the sacramental seal who says that in some place such a vice is spreading.

Response 1. He does not violate the seal if the vice is notorious and the place is sufficiently large, for instance about 3,000 persons; or, if the matter concerns a very infamous vice, such as sodomy or bestiality, 6,000-7,000 Catholics. The reason is that the burden which from this comes to penitents does not deserve to be noted.

Response 2. He violates the seal if the vice is occult; likewise if the vice is notorious but the place is sufficiently narrow, for instance less than 3,000; or, if the matter concerns a very infamous vice, less than 6,000-7,000 Catholics (St. Alphonsus, VI, 654, doubt 1; Homo Apostolicus, tr. 16, n. 158).

If, however, the discussion concerns a notorious vice, it can easily happen that the burden is only altogether light, or even such that it does not deserve to be noted, so that there is only venial fault or even no fault.

Note. As has already been indicated above, one who does not expressly say that such a vice flourishes in some place, but on account of things heard in confession more vigorously attacks certain not unaccustomed vices, for instance drunkenness, lust, dishonest courtships, does not create a burden worthy of note, and therefore acts licitly.

Question 3. Whether one violates the sacramental seal who says that such a person confessed to him.

Response. Of itself, negatively. If, however, by a manifestation of this kind, for instance if the penitent came secretly, the confessor would introduce suspicion of grave sin, he would not only sin gravely, but also seems to violate the sacramental seal, insofar as only from the confession actually made did he know the fact of confession, and relying on that knowledge he signified the said fact to others, and by that very signification introduced suspicion of grave sin (St. Alphonsus, VI, 638). If in the case posited the confessor merely said that such a person had asked that he might make confession, he would violate a natural secret, but not the sacramental seal.

Question 4. Whether one violates the seal who says that such a person was absolved by him.

Response. Negatively, but let the confessor abstain from this, lest a burden be created for the penitent concerning whom he cannot testify to that fact.

In certificates of confession, only mention of confession should be made. But let him refer to the penitent a sacristan asking whether someone wishes to receive Communion (St. Alphonsus, VI, 639).

Question 5. Whether one violates the seal who denies a certificate of confession to an indisposed penitent.

Response 1. The affirmative answer must be given: 1. if it is denied to one asking for it outside confession; 2. if it is denied within confession in those circumstances in which it is customary to give it, or it is demanded by Superiors or by the pastor. The reason is that the denial, although it has place in confession, nevertheless produces an effect after confession, or creates a burden for the penitent (St. Alphonsus, VI, 639).

Response 2. The negative answer must be given if the certificate is sought outside the aforesaid cases; likewise, as is clear, if the confession was fictitiously made.

Objection 1, against response I. By denying the certificate the confessor says nothing, but only does not approve that confession by positive testimony, to which he is not bound.¹

Response. It is the same whether the burden follows for the penitent from a positive act or from the omission of an act. If from omission, the confessor is bound to a positive act; just as, for example, he is bound to continue conversations with the penitent with whom he had previously been accustomed to converse, and cannot in the future abstain from them on account of the confession heard.

Objection 2. Nor does it stand in the way that St. Alphonsus objects that he is held to avoiding indirect revelation, which cannot be avoided when the certificate is denied. For by the same right it would have to be said that the seal is violated by one who denies absolution; for often, when the penitent is seen to abstain from Holy Communion, for example in colleges, scarcely any other reason for his abstinence can occur to the mind of those looking on than absolution denied.²

Response. I deny the parity; since denial of absolution is not, as denial of a certificate is, the cause of the burden. The cause of the burden in the case of absolution denied is the defect of disposition in the penitent, which defect prevents him from receiving Holy Communion.

Question 6. Whether one violates the seal who from sins alone heard in confession takes occasion to ask who that penitent was.

Response 1. Affirmatively, as is clear, if from the question instituted suspicion is introduced against the penitent.

Response 2. With suspicion to be introduced excluded, it likewise seems that the affirmative answer must be given, because inquiry of this kind, relying on sacramental knowledge, seems to render confession odious.

¹ Thus some adversaries.

² Thus some adversaries.

II. The sacramental seal is not violated:

1. By one who remembers the sins accused; nor by one who prays for the penitent or acts more kindly toward him (St. Alphonsus, VI, 657).

2. By one who consults books and more learned persons, provided the danger that the penitent be recognized is absent.

3. By one who better fulfills the offices of his duty, for instance by questioning and instructing penitents more prudently, by watching over subjects more diligently; nevertheless let him proceed cautiously, lest the penitent be burdened or implicitly reproved (St. Thomas, in IV, dist. 21, q. 3, art. 1, sol. 1, ad 1; St. Alphonsus, cited place).

4. By one who in a sermon treats not unaccustomed matter, or more strongly turns hearers away from some not unaccustomed occasion (St. Alphonsus, VI, 654, doubt 1).

5. By one who praises the conscience of the penitent, provided an evil suspicion against others is not introduced (St. Alphonsus, VI, 638, 1).

6. By one who after absolution in the confessional speaks with the penitent about things heard in confession; nor by one who in confession speaks about those things which were declared in a previous confession (St. Alphonsus, VI, 652, 653).

7. By one who before others relates sins and so forth accused by the penitent, without naming the person and with danger of recognizing that person excluded (St. Alphonsus, VI, 638, 3). Here, however, carefully observe that a manner of acting of this kind, if it is done rashly, although the sacramental seal is not violated, is altogether to be disapproved, as follows from the Instruction of the Holy Office to the Ordinaries of places and Moderators of Religious institutes;¹ concerning this Instruction certain things must be noted. Moreover:

a) The praised Instruction, "so that even the appearance and suspicion of injury inflicted on the sacrament may be avoided, so that the pious ears of hearers may not be offended and mistrust against the sacrament may not be stirred up," 1. disapproves the manner of acting of those "who, although all things which can in any way betray the person of the penitent have been kept back, do not fear rashly to speak, whether in private conversations or in public sermons to the people, as they say, for the edification of hearers, about things submitted in sacramental confession to the power of the keys"; 2. commands the Ordinaries of places and Superiors of Religious institutes, with their conscience gravely burdened, "that if they detect any abuses of this kind anywhere, they strive to restrain them promptly and efficaciously; and that in the future, both in theological schools and in conferences on cases of morals, as they call them, and in public and private addresses and exhortations to the clergy, they take care that the priests subject to them be diligently instructed never to dare, especially on the occasion of sacred Missions and Spiritual Exercises, to touch upon anything pertaining to the matter of sacramental confession, under whatever form and under whatever pretext, not even in passing, and neither directly nor indirectly, except in the case of necessary consultation to be proposed according to the rules handed down by approved authors, in their public or private discourses; and that in the examinations for their habilitation to receive confessions they be examined particularly on this matter"; 3. "trusts that none of the Confessors will contravene prescriptions of this kind; but if the contrary happens, let the aforesaid Ordinaries and Superiors gravely admonish transgressors, strike recidivists with fitting penalties, and in graver cases refer the matter as soon as possible to this Supreme Sacred Tribunal."

b) The Instruction certainly commands the Ordinaries of places and Superiors to remove abuses, if they exist. But it is disputed: 1. whether it imposes a true precept on confessors, or merely provides and inculcates a directive norm; 2. whether or not it had the force of law; 3. whether, if it had that force, it retained it. Namely, the aforesaid Instruction was never promulgated in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis; it lacks the approval of the Supreme Pontiff in specific form, indeed even in common form, which nevertheless according to the Constitution Sapienti Consilio² is required in order that Congregations may issue law. There is added that the Code did not retain the dispositions of the Instruction, nor does it refer to it in the sources, and that ecclesiastical Authority afterward was in no way accustomed to urge the said dispositions. These difficulties, although they can be weakened and partly solved, nevertheless bring it about that the Instruction can practically, at least as regards confessors, be held as a merely directive norm.

Note. As incapable of bearing testimony there are excluded "priests, as regards all those things which became known to them from sacramental confession, even if they have been released from the bond of the seal; indeed things heard by anyone and in any way on the occasion of confession cannot even be received as an indication of truth" (can. 1757, § 3, 2).

¹ June 19, 1915 (Monitor Ecclesiasticus 1917, p. 199).

² June 29, 1908.

The Obligation of the Seal of Confession.—(a) Its Subject.—Primarily the duty of the seal obliges the confessor, secondarily all others to whom the matter of sacramental confession in any way becomes known, such as bystanders, interpreters, or those who have spied into a confession. The penitent on his part is bound to keep as a natural secret the words of the confessor which the latter would rightly wish to be kept confidential (e.g., it would not be fair to excuse oneself in making necessary corrections, by saying that one was acting under advice of one’s confessor, especially since the confessor cannot defend himself).

(b) Its Object.—Primarily, the seal extends to all sins confessed, whether they be light or grave, private or public; and a confessor may not confirm from his knowledge as confessor what he also knows from other knowledge. Secondarily, it extends to all that is declared for a fuller explanation of the sins, such as circumstances, purpose, occasion, cooperation, and to all those things whose revelation would endanger the seal or make the Sacrament odious, such as the denial of absolution, the penance given, the insincerity, impatience or scrupulosity shown in confessing, the fact that a confession was long or a general review. Other matters not generally known and which the penitent reasonably wishes to be confidential (e.g., the fact that he made his confession, his natural defects of illegitimacy or deafness) should be kept as natural secrets. But there is no duty of sacramental or natural silence about matters which the confessor knows from other sources and which he is free to mention (e.g., facts learned from a non-sacramental confession made to the priest and others with a view to its use, or from the confessor’s own perception of a theft committed by the penitent in the act of confession).

Sins against the Seal of Confession.—(a) Direct violation happens if a confessor declares, either to the penitent himself or to another, matter protected by the seal, and with such clearness that both the penitent and his sin can be recognized. This occurs even though no names are mentioned, or the penitent is unknown to the listeners, or is no longer living, or when the listeners do not perceive that sacramental knowledge is being used. The sin is grave, and, since the injury to religion and the public is always serious, it admits of no lightness of matter. The penalty is excommunication most specially reserved to the Pope (Canon 2369).

(b) Indirect violation happens if a confessor so speaks or acts as to create a danger of direct violation (e.g., if he speaks so loud in the confessional that those outside can hear, or if he is suspiciously silent when the penitent is being commended, or if he warns the parents of a penitent to be specially watchful of him, or if he refuses to hear a confession because he knows from a previous confession that the person is very scrupulous, or if he shows less confidence or regard for the penitent). The sin admits of lightness of matter, since the danger of direct violation may be remote; but if there is grave culpability, suspension or even severer penalties may be inflicted (Canons 2369, 2368).

(c) Unlawful use of sacramental knowledge happens if there is no direct or indirect violation of the seal, but the confessor’s conduct is such as to make confession distasteful either to the penitent or to others, as when a superior is guided in giving his vote or directing his subject by information gathered from confession. This is forbidden in Canon 890.

(d) Apparent violation of the seal happens if there is really no direct or indirect violation of the seal, or unlawful use of confessional knowledge, but a priest’s language is calculated to arouse a reasonable suspicion that some such sin is being committed (e.g., if a preacher or retreat master or writer of moral cases uses illustrations from confessions heard by him which will excite distrust in his own or other penitents). Serious scandal and defamation may also be caused by public statements unfavorable to the morals of a certain city or community or class.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who are bound to the seal? - Primarily every confessor is bound to the seal, whether true, or fictitious and by error considered legitimate, and consequently even a layman who would pretend to be a priest and would receive Confession. The reason is that as often as someone confesses in relation to the sacrament, whoever hears him contracts by that very fact the obligation of the seal; otherwise hatred of the sacrament would follow from it. - Secondarily, those are bound who become participants of Confession, or all those to whom knowledge of Confession comes in any way, whether from the Confession itself or from the means ordered to it. From the Confession itself; for the matter accused comes to their knowledge by the same occasion or cause because of which the obligation of the seal is given, namely lest hatred toward the sacrament be created. From the means; for hatred of the means redounds upon the end itself. - L. 645, 647.

Resolutions: The following are bound to the seal: 1. Interpreters employed in making Confession. 2. Superiors from whom, outside the sacrament, the faculty is sought of absolving or receiving absolution from a reserved case. 3. Those who hear a sin while someone is confessing, whether intentionally or even inculpably, and likewise if any should perhaps hear it from these. 4. Those who write the Confession of the uneducated, or of those ignorant of the language of the confessor, especially if Confession cannot be made in another way. 5. Doctors consulted by the confessor with permission of the penitent. 6. All those to whom the confessor or another would sacrilegiously or imprudently have manifested sins heard in Confession. Hence they cannot even speak among themselves about them. - L. 638, 647, 648; St. Thomas, 4, d. 21, q. 3, a. 1, q. 3 and a. 2 ad 4.

Is the penitent also bound to the seal with respect to the confessor? - He is not bound to the sacramental seal, because the obligation of the seal is only in favor of the penitent. - But he is bound to natural secrecy concerning those things which he cannot reveal without unjust harm to the confessor, or against his reasonable will, or without injury and contempt of the sacrament. L. 647.

Can the confessor speak with the penitent about his Confession? - He can speak in Confession about all past Confessions. The reason is that it often pertains to the duties of judge and physician, which the confessor has, to recall the sins of a prior Confession.

He can also speak after absolution before the penitent departs, or if afterward he returns. The reason is that although the sacrament is complete, nevertheless the judgment still morally persists. - Outside the sacred tribunal he cannot say even one word to the penitent about those things which pertain to his Confession, without his permission. Except, unless the penitent himself first speaks about his conscience. - L. 647, 651-653.

Is one who reads a paper on which the penitent wrote his Confession bound to the seal? - Resp. In the negative of itself. The reason is that this is not of itself a means ordered to Confession. Therefore until Confession is made from it, there is not yet an act by which someone subjects himself to the power of the keys in relation to absolution; and consequently of itself it does not bring the obligation of the sacramental seal, but only of natural secrecy; which nevertheless of itself presses under grave obligation, unless there is question of the lightest faults. - Of itself; for per accidens the obligation of the seal can be present if the paper were or had been a necessary means for Confession, e.g., if it was written by a mute person, or directed to a superior for the cause of some reservation; likewise if the paper had already been handed to the priest; and especially if someone read it while it is in the hand of the confessor, or in the act of Confession, or if it had been lost and left in the confessional, because in these cases it pertains to Confession, since it seems to be a persisting Confession. L. 650.

Is a doctor consulted by the penitent himself bound to the seal of Confession? - Resp. In the negative, at least more probably, if he is consulted concerning a Confession to be made to another; but he is bound only to natural secrecy. The reason is that the obligation of the seal arises from sacramental Confession alone, in which the penitent manifests sins in relation to absolution. If he is consulted concerning a Confession to be made to another; because if the penitent consults him concerning a Confession to be made to that very person, he is bound by the seal, since this consultation is to be considered as an inchoate Confession. - Suarez, d. 33, s. 4; Billuart, diss. 8, a. 3; L. 549; St. Thomas, 4, d. 21, q. 3, a. 1, q. 2, par. Sed contra.

Note: The permission of the penitent required so that the confessor can speak about matters which require the seal of Confession must be formal and express, free and spontaneous, and not revoked. But it can be given by word, or in writing, or by the deed itself, if, e.g., the penitent himself outside Confession begins to speak with the confessor about matters said in Confession.

L. 651. - Concerning this question of speaking with the faculty of the penitent, the excellent Doctor says that two things are to be distinguished: "For one thing is that the penitent says again outside Confession the matters once said in Confession; another thing is that, while the same seal and the same knowledge are preserved, he gives the faculty of speaking from that knowledge... The difference between this way and the former... first is that the faculty is always revocable; for it depends on the will of the one giving, because he neither conferred new knowledge, nor transferred to another any irrevocable right. But if he once said outside Confession what he had previously said in Confession, that knowledge is now irrevocable, nor can the penitent make it so that afterward the confessor knows only in Confession. Second, when the confessor speaks in this latter way by faculty, he can and must say that he knows in Confession, and speaks by permission of the penitent, so that the other may receive it in the due way; but in the former way he cannot say that he heard it in Confession, because he does not speak from that knowledge, nor from a faculty with respect to it, but from new knowledge. Third, because then he who hears is bound by the seal, if the confessor speaks only from his own faculty..., but not if he speaks from new knowledge according to the former way. Fourth, because that former way can be done from mere will, without a cause which pertains to the sacrament or piety, because it is a matter merely extrinsic to the sacrament; but that faculty is not to be given, nor is it to be used, unless from grave cause or reasonable utility." De Poenit., d. 33, s. 5; Laymann, l. 5, tr. 6, c. 14, n. 16; La-Croix, l. 6, p. 2, n. 1960.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is the seal violated? - It can be violated in two ways: 1. directly, by expressly revealing something known from Confession alone, e.g., if it is said: Titius did this, so that either the penitent is indicated, or at least the penitent can probably be known from those things which are contained under the seal of Confession and are manifested; 2. indirectly, by saying or doing something, or by not saying, not doing, by force of sacramental Confession, from which someone by reasoning can know or suspect the sin or defect of the penitent known by force of Confession alone, or from which shame, annoyance, dishonor, harm, or any burden whatever can arise for the penitent or for others, e.g., accomplices; or hatred toward the sacrament, whence generally the faithful could be turned away from or delayed from Confession.

Resolutions: He violates the secrecy of Confession either indirectly or directly: 1. Who, praising one above others whom he has heard, says that he committed only venial sins, because from this the others are easily brought into suspicion of mortal fault. Likewise he who relates sins known from Confession in such a way that the hearers can by some reason conjecture or suspect who committed them.

2. Who speaks with another confessor about the sins of some penitent, even if that penitent confessed the same sins to each. - Who speaks about the sin of a penitent, known through Confession alone, with others who know this from elsewhere, even if the hearers do not notice that it was received from Confession; if indeed he speaks of it as of a matter of which he himself has knowledge, but by no means if he speaks of it as people commonly are accustomed to speak about a matter which is first narrated to them and which they first learn. Indeed even studied silence of the confessor could sometimes introduce suspicion against the penitent. - Who, while narrating the sins of some person which he knew outside Confession, adds some circumstance known from Confession alone, or who uses knowledge of Confession for determining or confirming the matter more.

3. Who says that he did not absolve such a person, sent him back to such a time, has not yet absolved him, or that the Confession has not yet been completed; because a long Confession ordinarily denotes many sins, or indisposition of the penitent. - Likewise who says of Titius, known as a thief, that he confessed his thefts to him with great contrition. - Who with a loud voice, or in another manner intelligible to bystanders, rebukes a penitent; for this is both grave to the penitent and introduces suspicion to others that he confessed grave sins; and a fortiori if by raising his voice too much he would repeat the sins of the penitent, or question about their circumstances.

4. Who, after hearing the Confessions of few persons, says that he heard such a sin, although he conceals the person; for each one suffers some suspicion against himself from that revelation. - Who would say that he heard a grave sin in such a monastery, even if he did not name the person; because each religious of that convent suffers detriment. - A fortiori he would violate the seal who would say that such sins are committed in that convent. But otherwise if he would say that he heard the grave sin of some religious in general, without naming his order, because there is neither revelation of the seal, nor does it redound to the burden of the penitent, nor of any order, since among the various orders there are not lacking some less good religious.

5. Who looks upon the penitent after Confession with a stern eye, does not address him as he had been accustomed to do before, and shows by harsher words, gestures, or his whole manner of acting, that he remembers his sins, is actually thinking about them, and esteems him less than before. L. 654, 655, 657.

Does a confessor violate the seal who denies a certificate of Confession to an indisposed penitent? - Resp. In the affirmative, as often as he denies the certificate to a penitent asking for it outside Confession. The reason is that he uses knowledge of Confession for acting exteriorly, and indeed with great burden to the penitent. - If an indisposed penitent asks for a certificate within Confession, when it is usually given, or is required by the superiors of the penitent, Lugo with others denies, because the confessor says nothing, but only does not approve that Confession by positive testimony, to which he is not bound. D. 23, n. 87. But the doctors more probably and more commonly affirm, because from denial of the certificate it becomes known to others that the penitent was not duly confessed nor absolved, and therefore it will be an indirect violation of the seal. Elbel 492; Sporer 839; L. 639. - But negatively, if the penitent asks for a certificate in Confession outside the aforesaid circumstances, or when it is not usually 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 with positive testimony, to which he is not bound. Besides, the penitent is not compelled by necessity to declare to others that he was not absolved; whence if he says this, he himself discloses his indisposition, not the confessor.

Lugo, d. 23, n. 87. - Nevertheless at times the confessor can give a certificate of Confession even to an indisposed penitent because of various inconveniences which would follow from its denial; nor then will he cooperate in the sacrilege of the penitent, who perhaps will use this testimony of Confession for receiving a sacrament of the living, e.g., 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 492. - Negatively also, whenever the penitent made a simulated Confession, e.g., to flee punishment or avoid infamy. 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 way had here. Nor generally can the confessor grant such persons a certificate, because without sufficient reason he would cooperate in their future sacrilege. Besides, he would assert something false, namely that they were confessed, which is not true. Lugo, d. 23, n. 87; Elbel 494.

What must the confessor do when he detects that the penitent is deaf? - If he notices the deafness at the beginning of Confession, he must impose on the penitent that he return at a suitable time and place. If in the course of Confession he discovers this, generally he cannot impose on the penitent in a loud voice that he return, lest he introduce to others a suspicion that he had confessed concerning grave matter; but let him hear the sins in the best way he can, and, with questions omitted, impart absolution to the penitent in an absolute manner if he judges him disposed, or conditional absolution if he doubts about the disposition; and let him impose a light penance on him, lest others think that he sinned gravely. L. 644.

Can the confessor admonish an accomplice with the permission of the penitent, or another for correcting the accomplice? - Resp. In the affirmative. The reason is that an accomplice acquires no right to the sacramental seal from the Confession of the other accomplice; for this seal was instituted only in favor of penitents, and consequently the right of secrecy is acquired for him alone who commits it. - Ordinarily however it is not expedient for the confessor to ask such permission; but it will be better to induce the penitent to open this to him outside Confession; indeed it will be still better for the penitent himself to report the matter to another who can bring a remedy to the evil. - L. 640, 641; St. Thomas, Opusc. 12, q. 6.

Can the confessor deny Communion to a penitent to whom he previously denied absolution, if he approaches the sacred table?

Resp. In the negative, even if he asks secretly, because the confessor cannot use knowledge of Confession for acting externally against the penitent. "This opinion today must altogether be held from the Decree of Innocent XI." L. 658.

Does he break the seal who says that such a vice reigns in a city or village, or that grave crimes are committed there? - Resp. In the affirmative, if the place is sufficiently narrow, e.g., if it does not consist of about three thousand persons. "The reason is that although the person is not then revealed, nevertheless since the revelation issues into the infamy of the whole community, it also redounds to the burden of the penitent, who is a member of that community, and therefore from such revelation Confession would be rendered odious to him." L. 654. Otherwise, if the town is large and public crimes are often perpetrated there. L. 654.

Can preachers use knowledge of Confession to speak about those things about which they would not have thought unless they had heard Confessions? - Resp. In the affirmative, with danger of revelation and burden of penitents excluded. The reason is that no violation of the seal is then had. But, as is clear, they can do this only generally and indeterminately, and not by adding that they heard it in Confessions. Therefore they must altogether beware lest they speak publicly about the wholly particular sins of one or another penitent, especially if they have the sermon before some small community, e.g., in a monastery of nuns; because then revelation could easily arise and burden be introduced. - Elbel 525; L. 654.

Can a priest who knows from Confession that plots are being prepared against him flee, or in another way prevent the harm? - Resp. In the affirmative, if from such caution the sin accused is in no way manifested to others, nor any burden brought to the penitent. - If he cannot flee without somehow manifesting that some sin was accused by the penitent, then several still affirm; because to reveal the confession of a sin is not to reveal the sin; and indeed in this case it is clear that knowledge of the sin does not arise from Confession, but on the contrary knowledge of the Confession of the sin proceeds from certain knowledge of the sin. Castro Palao, tr. 23, p. 19, § 3, n. 18. But others, whose opinion I follow, says St. Liguori, deny, and it seems altogether to be denied. The reason is that with such circumstances posited, namely the knowledge of the crime by others and the Confession of the penitent, that flight would be a true revelation, although indirect, not only of the Confession made but also of the sin confessed; and although the confessor would pretend flight from some pretext, nevertheless it would always provide a reasonable suspicion of the sin declared. - Therefore to escape those dangers, either from the permission of the penitent or by other ways he must provide without that indirect breaking of the seal. - Lugo, d. 23, n. 108 ff.; L. 659.

Can superiors use knowledge of Confession for external government, if it in no way appears that they direct themselves from that knowledge? - Resp. In the negative. The reason is that evidently this would yield to the burden of penitents. Besides, if the faithful knew that such a doctrine was taught everywhere, they would be drawn back from Confession. This is clear also from various Decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, especially Clement VIII, May 26, 1594, for Regulars. But although this Decree was issued for Regulars, it must be extended to all superiors, since the same reason which presses for Regulars also holds for seculars. It is clear also from the Decree of the S. I. C. issued by the authority of Innocent XI in the year 1682. - L. 656, 657, 670; Lugo, d. 23, n. 98; La-Croix 1977; E. M.

Can the confessor at least sometimes, or when, use knowledge of Confession? - According to all theologians he can do this in the following cases: 1. to pray for the penitent, or to act more kindly toward him; 2. to consult books or wise men, prudently however, with danger of revelation excluded; 3. to direct himself by the experience acquired from Confessions, e.g., to temper rigor, and to direct himself from the Confession of one person toward prudently questioning or instructing others, while giving no suspicion of the prior Confession; 4. to reform his own morals, to correct his own defects, or to perform his office better, e.g., to cast off sloth, to watch more diligently over subjects generally, with suspicion of revelation in a particular case nevertheless excluded, and with any burden of the penitent and hatred toward Confession excluded, because each person is bound to correct his own defects as soon as he notices them; nor can any penitent reasonably be offended because the confessor, on account of things heard in Confession, changes his own life for the better, with no inconvenience or burden to him at all. 5. The same indeed is lawful in other similar cases, with the same restrictions always: that no revelation of Confession be had, no burden of the penitent, no hatred toward Confession. - L. 657.

1. Landulphus, a parish priest, is often consulted by his vicars, with the license of penitents, concerning the same cases of conscience occurring to them in confessions, yet not set forth with the same circumstances. Hence he is very doubtful, when the case has already been proposed to him in one way and then is set forth in another way with other circumstances, what he himself ought to respond, and whether he can use in his response the knowledge which he already has of the Case. Indeed, while he himself hears confessions, he often notes that a case which a penitent sets forth to him has already been set forth several times to him by his vicars, with other quite diverse circumstances. Hence he is still more doubtful whether he himself can respond according to the knowledge which he already has of the case, and manifest it to the penitent, so that the penitent can better set forth the case and he himself resolve it.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. "When someone has been consulted concerning the same sin by two confessors, to whom the penitent has confessed separately, he must speak with each as if he did not know it by another way; nor can he say to one any other diverse circumstance which he learned from the other, but he must respond to each according to those things which each narrates. Yet he will be able to say conditionally, if the matter were not in this way, but in another diverse way with such a circumstance, it would have to be said otherwise. But he must do this very thing cautiously and with the seal preserved." Lugo, d. 23, n. 30. St. Alphonsus 648 indeed thinks the opposite true, because just as it is certainly believed that the penitent wills no other counsel except right counsel, so it is certainly presumed that he wills that the doctor himself speak freely about all things which he knows from the first confessor and which pertain to furnishing right counsel. But this presumption is very uncertain; for in this matter the presumption is, as the same Holy Doctor asserts in the place cited, that the penitent gives license with every limitation with which he can. And certainly the matter is not without burden for the penitent and hatred of the sacrament, if the confessor, observing that more is answered to him than the matter set forth would require, should thence come into suspicion concerning the sincerity of his penitent. But if the penitent then performs confession before this doctor whom his confessor had consulted, "can this man speak about those sins which he previously knew by knowledge derived from the first confession? For this does not seem to be against the seal, since he does not speak outside the sacramental forum; but the matter always remains under the same seal of confession. Moreover, I would not dare to concede this license, because, although each is a seal of confession, nevertheless it is not of confession made to the same confessor; for this priest knew the sins of the former confession as one holding something on the part of the prior confessor and in his name; wherefore he shared in the seal and the obligation of that man." Lugo, d. 29, n. 128; I. M. 837.

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

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

3. "You set forth that some missionaries, when they know the number of those whom in confession they have permitted to approach Holy Communion, without interrogating the penitents, place the same number of particles to be consecrated; and you ask whether this practice is to be prohibited. No one fails to see that missionaries acting thus use knowledge acquired in confession, which is expressly forbidden by the laws of the Church; nor is this depraved manner of acting efficacious for keeping away the unworthy: for an unworthy person can approach among the first to the sacred synaxis, from which a worthy person would be excluded from Communion for an unworthy one, with the added danger also of further scandal to the prejudice of sacramental confession. Wherefore this abuse is altogether to be removed." S. C. de P. F., Feb. 29, 1836; Collectan., n. 939.

4. In a certain parish, so that children might be duly admitted to first Communion, they were directed to certain determined confessors, who, having heard the confession of the same children, according to a judgment prudently formed by themselves concerning the dispositions of each one, would freely admit them or exclude them from first Communion, handing to them admission cards to be shown to the parish priest. Was this done licitly?

R. Altogether illicitly. For it is sufficiently clear that in the Case the judgment concerning the due disposition of the children for first Communion is simply committed to the confessor, and that the confessor forms that judgment from the confession heard. But when the confessor, from this judgment concerning the state of the soul of the children, handed or did not hand to those same children the card of admission to first Communion, thus distinguishing those to be admitted and those to be excluded, it is evident that there is had thence an illicit use of knowledge received through confession. S. Poenit., June 8, 1843. Cf. Nouvelle Revue Theolog., vol. 21, p. 52 ff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R. "The author of the Additions to Wigandt is by no means to be heard, saying that granted that from the knowledge of confession alone a superior cannot be directed to external government, nevertheless he will be able from it to receive light and to take another external pretext or color for denying an office." Lig. 657; I. M. 859.

6. Eugenia, confessing several sins of impatience, anger, and also imprecations, manifested to the confessor the extreme misery in which her whole numerous family was secretly placed, although it was not of common condition. Immediately after Eugenia a most pious matron confesses, and when the confession has been completed offers the confessor a note for a thousand lire to be spent on some pious work or alms. Going into the sacristy, the confessor sees Eugenia still kneeling before the confessional seat, and, passing by her and saying nothing to her, hands her that note wrapped in another paper, as though it were some letter.

It is asked: 1.º How is the seal of sacramental confession violated? - 2.º Whether the use of sacramental knowledge is licit? - 3.º Whether the confessor acted rightly in the Case?

R. To the 1st. The sacramental seal can be violated both directly and indirectly. Direct violation of the sacramental seal is had by manifesting those things which are the object of this seal, so that the penitent also becomes known. Indirect violation of the seal is had by saying or doing, or even by not saying or not doing something, whence either some sin of the penitent is deduced, or a burden of the penitent follows, or hatred against confession for the faithful follows.

To the 2nd. The use of knowledge of sacramental confession is illicit whenever from it there follows either revelation of some sin of the penitent, or some burden of the penitent, or hatred against confession. Outside these cases it is not illicit.

To the 3rd. In the Case the confessor does not seem to have violated the seal of sacramental confession. He certainly uses knowledge of confession; but that use certainly neither contains the revelation of any sin, nor can the sin of the penitent be inferred from it. Likewise that use is not unto hatred of confession, since surely a use of this sort would not commonly keep the faithful away from confession. Finally, the aforesaid use brings no burden to the penitent. For, considering the prudent and discreet manner of handing that note to the penitent, and considering also that notable quantity of money, which perhaps could even be owed to that family from some hidden restitution to be made, certainly no injury to the penitent followed from this, no even tacit reproach, no shame for that penitent, no embarrassment. Who indeed would say that the penitent, opening that letter and finding a note for a thousand lire, would feel displeasure, and would not rather give thanks with grateful heart to God for a grace received even though not asked for?

The seal of confession is the religious obligation of preserving secrecy concerning those things which are known from sacramental confession.

We must treat: 1. of the obligation of the seal; 2. of the subject of the seal; 3. of the object of the seal; 4. of the various ways of violating it.

“Although, as the Council of Trent teaches, it is commanded by no divine precept, nor could it be prescribed sufficiently prudently by any human law, that offenses, especially secret ones, be disclosed by public confession, nevertheless it appeared to the appointed Fathers, adhering to the same holy Synod, that those who wish spontaneously to confess through an interpreter ought not to be prohibited by the Apostolic Vicar of Constantinople. It will suffice for him to guard against abuses and scandals and to take care that the interpreter be admonished concerning the obligation of observing secrecy.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 6 September 1630; 19 July 1838.

“In distant regions, can a Catholic who has not confessed for many years and who, because of a lack of language, seeks absolution only by signs, be absolved without the aid of an interpreter?—Response. There is no need of an interpreter in the case proposed; likewise, absolution from sins can and ought to be imparted to one who exhibits such signs as he can, provided that they suffice to express some sin in kind. But in a case in which someone strives as much as he can to exhibit signs of sins in kind, but they cannot be understood at all, he can be absolved through the manifestation of sins in general alone.” Holy Office, 28 February 1633.

“Missionaries, when dealing with penitents whose language they do not know, are to exhort them to employ an interpreter through whom they may confess all their sins. But if they are unwilling to do this, they are at least to confess some through an interpreter and the rest by nods and signs, insofar as they can. But if they are unwilling to confess any through an interpreter, they are to confess by signs in every better manner in which they can, as is done with the mute. But missionaries are to take care to learn, from each language commonly used there, those few words which are necessary for explaining the principal sins against the precepts of the Church.” Holy Office, 10 February 1668.

“But in order that the abuse which, as stated above, has crept into the aforesaid regions—Goa and the adjacent islands—of hearing confessions through an interpreter, or by reading a catalogue of sins to the penitent so that he may indicate by nods if any was committed by him, may be eradicated from the root, it is strictly commanded to the Vicars Capitular—also gravely burdening the conscience of the regulars themselves and of all whom it concerns—that in future they permit this in no way, but that confessions be heard only by those who sufficiently understand the meaning of that language; and that, in order to increase their number as the matter requires, secular priests of that region be altogether advanced to hear the confessions of the faithful in their native language.” Clement IX, Constitution In excelsa, 13 September 1669.

"Although, as the Council of Trent teaches, it has been commanded by no Divine precept, nor can it by any human law be prescribed with sufficient counsel, that offenses, especially secret ones, be opened by public Confession, nevertheless it seemed to the delegated Fathers, adhering to the same Holy Synod, that those who voluntarily wish to confess through an interpreter ought not to be prohibited by the Apostolic Vicar of Constantinople; for whom it will suffice to guard against abuses and scandals, and to take care that the interpreter be admonished concerning the obligation to the observance of the secret." S. C. de P. F. 1633.

"Whether in distant regions a Catholic, unconfessed for many years, asking absolution by signs only, because of defect of language, can be absolved without the help of an interpreter? Resp. There is no need of an interpreter in the proposed case, just as also absolution of sins can and must be imparted to one exhibiting the signs which he can..., provided they suffice for expressing some sin in species. But in the case in which someone tries as much as he can to exhibit signs of sins in species, but they cannot be understood at all, he can be absolved through only a manifestation of sins in general." S. C. S. O. 28 Feb. 1653.

"Missionaries dealing with penitents whose language they do not know should exhort them to employ an interpreter, through whom they may confess all sins; but if they should be unwilling to do this, let them at least confess some through an interpreter and the rest through nods and signs, as much as they can; but if they wish to confess none through an interpreter, let them confess through signs in every better way in which they will be able, as is done in the case of mute persons. But let Missionaries take care to learn from each language usual there those few words which are necessary for explaining the principal sins against the precepts of the Church." S. C. S. O. 10 Feb. 1668.

"But that the abuse which in the aforesaid regions, namely Goa and the adjacent islands, as is stated above, has crept in, of receiving Confessions through an interpreter, or by a catalogue of sins read to the penitent so that he may indicate by nods whether any have been committed by him, may be uprooted radically, it is strictly commanded to the capitular Vicars, the conscience also of the Regulars themselves and of whomever it concerns being gravely burdened, that in the future they permit this in no way, but that Confessions be heard only by those who sufficiently perceive the meaning of that language; and, to increase their number according to the requirement of the matter, secular Priests of that region are to be promoted altogether for receiving the Confessions of the faithful in the native language." Clement IX, Const. In excelsa, 13 Sept. 1669.

496. The sacramental seal, or seal of confession, is the strictest obligation of keeping under secrecy those things which have been known by sacramental confession. It is called a seal, because letters which are intended to be kept entirely secret are customarily marked with a seal. - We shall speak of the obligation, subject, matter, and violation of the sacramental seal.

¹ St. Thomas, Supplem., q. 11; Suarez, disp. XXXIII; Lugo, disp. XXIII; Salmantic., ch. 14; Morinus, lib. II, c. 19; Stoz, lib. II, n. 183-331; Lacroix, n. 1933-2001; St. Alphonsus, n. 633-661; Billuart, diss. VIII; Elbel-Bierb., Confer. XIX-XX; Lehmk., n. 456-475; Marc, n. 1860-1869; Ball. P., n. 899-1024; Genicot, n. 379-393; Noldin, n. 415-426.

503. Principle: Not only the confessor, but also all those who by chance or by industry, that is, illegitimately, mediately or immediately, have heard something from sacramental confession, are bound to keep the seal. Thus from can. 889.

For all these were sharers in the sacramental secret; therefore they are sharers in the obligation of keeping it.

504. Corollaries. The following are bound to keep the seal: -

(a) A cleric or layman who, pretending that he is a priest, received the confession of one who in good faith confesses to him, at least according to the common opinion, which in practice must be wholly observed, from what was said above (n. 501); for the confession, although invalid, is made in order to obtain absolution, and therefore must be protected by the seal.

(b) A confessor who, even outside the sacred tribunal, is consulted by a penitent about sins to be accused in a confession to be made to him; for such consultation is a confession begun; but more probably not one who is consulted about a confession to be made to another, because this is not a confession begun; nevertheless, in this latter case the law of an entrusted secret is in force.

(c) One who has read the written confession of another, already handed to the confessor, whether while it is in the hand of the confessor, or after absolution left in the confessional, or lost by the confessor; for in all these circumstances it is connected immediately with confession. But if someone has read a paper on which the penitent described his sins by way of an examination of conscience, before he has used it in the act itself of confession, he is not bound by the seal, but only by the law of natural secrecy.

(d) An interpreter employed for carrying out the confession; or one who, being asked, has written the confession of another; bystanders who, whether by chance or by industry, hear sins declared in confession; or all those who have heard from the confessor or from others sins accused in the sacred tribunal. Indeed, all those who attempt to hear persons confessing by that very fact violate the law of the seal.

(e) Superiors from whom, outside confession, the faculty of absolving from reserved sins is sought, insofar as they can say or do nothing from which it would become known which subject has fallen into a reserved sin.

(f) A consulter, or theologian, to whom a case of conscience is referred with the permission of the penitent: for then he becomes a sharer in the secret.

But the penitent himself is not bound by the law of the sacramental seal, which has been established in favor of penitents, not of confessors; but by the law of natural and religious secrecy, he ought to keep silent about what he has heard in confession, if those things cannot be manifested without harm to the confessor. - Hence a prudent confessor will beware lest he say things which he would not wish to become known to others: for often penitents converse among themselves about what they have heard in the sacred tribunal.

505. Principle: All those things fall under the seal which were known in confession, or on the occasion of sacramental confession, and cannot be revealed without confession being rendered odious. It is certain.

It is plain from the very end for which the seal was instituted; since it was instituted for this end, that the faithful not be kept away from confession; but that which renders confession odious either to the penitent himself or to others, by that very fact deters some of the faithful from it; therefore.

506. Corollaries. Some things fall directly, but some indirectly, under the seal.

Directly under the seal fall all those things which are declared as matter of confession, or for a fuller understanding of it; namely, all sins, mortal or venial, past or proposed, that is, those which the penitent intended to commit. Nor are public sins excepted, when they are known from confession, both because the confessor by his testimony confirms them and renders them more public, and because penitents would fear lest the confessor reveal their sins under the pretext that they are public.

Nevertheless, he would not violate the seal who said that some penitent had confessed venial sins, or that he lives so innocently that he commits only a few venial sins; for no one, without a special privilege, can be wholly immune from venial sins. But it is not lawful to reveal some venial sin in species, or even to say that such a penitent accused himself of many venial sins.

507. Indirectly under the seal fall all those things which can lead to knowledge of the sins of the penitent, or bring a burden upon him, such as: -

(a) Circumstances of sins, whether useful or superfluous, which the penitent sets forth in order to declare his sins better, even after absolution has been received, provided they are connected with the confession itself (for example, attendance at theaters, reading of certain books), and have something sinful about them: for all these things morally form one whole with the sins themselves. - Yet those circumstances do not fall under the seal which, although useful for confession, bear nothing sinful or odious in themselves, for example, that such a penitent is married, a magistrate, a soldier, etc.; nor the public sins of another which the penitent mentions in order to explain his own, for example, if he says that he has wished evil to the author of some publicly committed crime.

(b) Defects of the penitent manifested by confession alone, for example, illegitimate birth, lack of manners, ignorance; and therefore sins committed in the confession itself, although not accused, for example, impatience, insults against the confessor himself; for revelation of these defects certainly brings a burden upon the penitent. But natural defects known from elsewhere, for example, deafness, do not fall under the seal.

As to scrupulosity, it is matter of the seal if it is accused as a moral defect, or for declaring other sins, or if it becomes known by the fact that many things are accused as sins which are not sins: because then it is truly a defect known by confession alone. But if it becomes known from the manner of speaking and answering, it is matter of natural secrecy, if it is not otherwise publicly known.

(c) The penance imposed, unless it is very slight, because otherwise occasion would be given for suspecting the penitent to be guilty of mortal sins or of many venial sins.

508. (d) The sins of an accomplice, whether legitimately or imprudently revealed to the confessor, or the sins of others declared so that one's own sins may be better set forth (for example, I hated my father because he had struck my mother); for such manifestation would render confession odious. Hence the confessor cannot use this knowledge to warn or correct the accomplice, except with the express permission of the penitent: indeed, he will use this permission, spontaneously given, very rarely, lest the accomplice suspect that the seal is being violated.

(e) The virtues and gifts of God, and the good works of the penitent, are not matter of the seal, unless they are manifested for better declaring a sin, for example, abuse of grace; for their manifestation does not render confession odious. But all these things are the object of natural secrecy during the life of the penitent; but after he has died, for a grave cause they can be revealed, for example, for the beatification of saints.

(f) Absolution denied is matter of the seal, since manifestation of this matter is certainly odious; hence, if parents, teachers, and others question confessors about absolution given to children, pupils, etc., they are to be referred to the penitents themselves. - Although absolution given does not fall under the seal, the confessor acts imprudently by saying that he absolved such a one, because, when he is silent, suspicion will arise that absolution had been denied. - Access to confession is not matter of the seal, both because it is known outside confession, and because it is not odious; therefore he does not violate the seal who says: Titius confessed to me, or did not confess to me. Yet if someone secretly confesses to another, this is the object of natural secrecy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. THE SUBJECT OF THE SEAL. —By the subject of the seal we mean the person bound to observe it. That person is primarily the confessor or any layman who may have wrongfully impersonated a priest in the tribunal of penance; ¹⁹ secondarily, all who have cooperated in confession, e. g., the superior to whom the penitent has applied for absolution from reserved sins; the interpreter through whom he has confessed his sins; any one whom the confessor, with the penitent's permission, has consulted or asked for advice, or who has written out the penitent's sins at his request, or who has accidentally (casu) or purposely (furtive) overheard the confession or otherwise obtained a knowledge of it.²⁰

¹⁹ Cfr. St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., 1. VI, n. 645. —Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 498: "Every confessor is primarily bound by the seal, whether true or pretended and regarded as legitimate by mistake, and consequently even a layman who should pretend to be a priest and hear a confession. The reason is that whenever anyone confesses in order to the Sacrament, whoever hears him thereby contracts the obligation of the seal; otherwise hatred of the Sacrament would result. So say all."

²⁰ Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 889, I 2. —Cf. Gury, Compendium Theol. Mor., Vol. II, n. 498: "Those who become participants in a confession are secondarily bound, that is, all those to whom knowledge of the confession comes in any way, whether from the confession itself or from means ordered to it. From the confession itself, because the matter accused comes to them for the same reason for which the obligation of the seal is given, namely, lest hatred of the Sacrament be created; from the means, because hatred of the means redounds upon the end itself. Hence the following are bound by the seal: interpreters employed in making a confession; superiors from whom, outside the Sacrament, the faculty of absolving or receiving absolution from a reserved case is sought; those who, while someone is confessing, hear a sin either deliberately or even blamelessly, and likewise others who hear it from them; those who write the confession of persons uneducated in or ignorant of the confessor’s language whenever the confession could scarcely be made otherwise; doctors consulted by the confessor with the penitent’s permission; all those to whom the confessor sacrilegiously or imprudently disclosed sins heard in confession." tionem

Any one who has read, or heard read, the notes which served another as a necessary means of confessing his sins, (e. g., in the case of a deafmute) is obliged to keep the sacramental seal; otherwise the duty of silence is purely natural.²¹

²¹ Cfr. St. Alphonsus, Theol. obtineat Mor., 1. VI, n. 645-650 (Ed. Gaudé, III, 665); G ury, Comp. Theol. Mor., gatio II, n. 498.

As the obligation of secrecy arises solely from sacramental confession (ex omni et sold confessione sacramentali), a fictitious confession knowingly made to a layman or to an unauthorized priest does not impose the sacramental seal, but merely entails the natural obligation of keeping secret whatever is communicated in confidence. ²² 6. VIOLATION OF THE SEAL. —The seal of confession can be broken (violatio, laesio sive fr adio sigilli sacrament alis) either directly or indirectly.²³ a) It would be a direct breach of the seal were a priest to name a penitent and say he has committed such and such a sin, of which he (the priest) has knowledge only through confession, or to say that the penitent told him such a sin in confession. Any direct breach of the seal, even if the sins revealed are but slight, is a grievous violation of justice and a sacrilege.233" It is called complete (violatio plena) if it includes the name of the penitent, the character of his sin, and the fact that he confessed it. When one of these details is lacking, the violation is termed partial (partialis). b) The seal is broken indirectly when the confessor says or does, or omits to say or do, something from which others may gain a knowledge of confessional matter, or by which a penitent may be justly aggrieved or confession made odious. ²⁴ Such an indirect violation of the seal is merely a venial sin when the danger of publicity is slight or the carelessness of the confessor not grievously sinful.

²² Gury, Comp. Theol. 'Mor., II, n. n. 496: "A confession made materially to a layman or to a priest expressly lacking jurisdiction does not create the obligation of the seal, but only of a natural secret. It is otherwise if the priest is believed to be approved, because on the penitent’s part the confession is truly sacramental. If anyone approaches a confessor with the intention of deceiving or mocking him, drawing him into sin, or extorting something from him, he does not accuse himself in order to the Sacrament and there is no obligation. On the contrary, if anyone opens his conscience to a confessor without the will to receive absolution, but in order to obtain counsel or merely to satisfy a superior’s command, the obligation of the sacramental seal is present."

²³ Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, 505: "The seal can be violated in two ways: directly, by revealing something known from confession alone, for example, if it is said, Titus did this, and so forth; indirectly, by saying or doing something from which anyone can know or suspect a sin or offense of the penitent known in confession alone, or from which shame, annoyance, disgrace, loss, or any burden can arise for the penitent or for others, for example, accomplices." 23a Codex Iuris Can., can. 889.

²⁴ Cfr. Gury, op. cit., II, n. 506- 508.

Direct violation of the seal admits of no par-vitas materiac, whereas indirect violation does. Thus the matter would be slight, and the sin consequently venial, if a confessor would reveal something he had heard in confession through inadvertence, in the firm belief that the identity of the penitent was unknown or the danger of its being guessed extremely slight.

Priests who hear confession should never converse about matters heard in the confessional with lay persons, and with fellow priests only to seek advice or instruction, and always with great caution (tecto nomine), so that there is no danger of the seal being violated.

A confessor violates the seal also by saying that a certain sin is rife in a community (parish, monastery, seminary), especially if the community is small.²⁵

²⁵ St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., 1. VI, n. 654. —J. P. Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 508: "Does one break the seal who says that such a vice prevails in a city or village, or that grave crimes are committed there? The answer is affirmative if the place is sufficiently small, for example, if it does not consist of about three thousand people. It is otherwise if the town is large and public crimes are committed there rather often."

Knowledge gained in the confessional may not be used by superiors for the external government of their subjects as such a proceeding is apt to annoy the penitents, or to render the Sacrament odious, or to lead to an indirect breach of the seal.²⁶

²⁶ Cfr. Th. Slater, A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. II, p. 232. The new Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 890, forbids such use absolutely.

Provided the seal is kept intact, a confessor may, if necessary, communicate information obtained in sacramental confession to prudent and experienced persons for the purpose of seeking advice, but beyond this, he must observe strict silence.²⁷

²⁷ Cfr. the Instructio S. R. et U. Inquisitionis of June 9, 1915, which says, inter alia: "Nevertheless, ministers of this saving Sacrament are sometimes not lacking who, although suppressing everything that could in any manner betray the penitent’s person, are not afraid rashly to speak—whether in private conversations or in public sermons to the people, for the edification of their hearers, as they say—about matters submitted in sacramental confession to the power of the keys. But since in a matter of such weight and importance not only a complete and consummated injury but every appearance and suspicion of injury must be avoided with the greatest care, it is plain to all how such a custom is to be condemned. For although this is done with the substance of the sacramental secret preserved, it surely cannot fail to offend the pious ears of hearers and arouse distrust in their souls. This is altogether foreign to the nature of this Sacrament, in which the most merciful Lord Jesus blots out with the pardon of His most merciful goodness the sins which, through the frailty of human intercourse, we have com- SACRAMENTAL mitted, and utterly forgets them. Let Ordinaries take care that the priests subject to them be diligently taught never to dare, especially on the occasion of sacred missions and spiritual exercises, to touch in their public or private discourse upon anything pertaining to the matter of sacramental confession, under any form or pretext, not even incidentally, either directly or indirectly—except in a case of necessary consultation proposed according to the rules handed down by approved authors; and let them order that, in examinations for their qualification to hear confessions, they be specially examined on this matter." Ferreres, Comp. Theol. Mor.t Vol. II, n. 771 sq.

READINGS.—St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, Supplementum, qu. 11, art. 1-5.—St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, 1. V, n. 633-661. —F. X. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, pp. 220 sqq. —A. Lehmkuhl, S.J., Casus Conscientiae, Vol. II, 3rd ed., Freiburg 1907, n. 530-580.—Th. Slater, S.J., A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. II, pp. 228 sqq.—Addis and Arnold's Catholic Dictionary, 9th ed. (by T. B. Scannell), London 1917, pp. 766 sq—R. S. Nolan in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII, pp. 649-665-—Bedeley, Privilege of Religious Confession in English Courts of Justice, London 1865.—Hopwood, The Law of Confession in Criminal Cases, London 1871. —H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theologiae Moralis, Vol. III, 11th ed., pp. 491 sqq., Innsbruck 1914.—B. Kurtscheid, O.F.M., Das Beichtsiegel in seiner gcschichl. Entwicklung, Freiburg, 1912. (Engl. ed. by Marks-Preuss, St. Louis 1928).—Honoré, Le Secret de la Confession, Louvain 1924—On the Instructio of June 9, 1915, see S. Woywod, O.F.M., in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Oct., 1924, Vol. XXV, No. i, pp. 64 sqq.

— Appendix XII belongs to this section. Historical. Cf. Appendix XII.

— Notion. By his sacramental confession the penitent entrusts to the confessor a deposit inviolably sealed, whose seal can be violated directly or indirectly.

Direct violation is committed by him who narrates, with designation of the person to whom it pertains, a matter which is protected by the seal.

Indirect violation is of two kinds. Properly so called, or strictly taken, it is committed when that revelation is not intended but permitted, that is, when by speech or action diverse and directed to another end, danger is incurred lest what must be covered by the seal be manifested. This will be done when either the matter is narrated without open designation of the person, or the person is designated without indication of the matter, but with danger of manifesting the person, or of injecting suspicion of the matter.

Even with every danger of revelation excluded, every use of sacramental knowledge with a burden to the penitent is wholly prohibited to the confessor (c. 890, §1). This use can be referred to a certain more broadly so-called violation of the seal. And this will be committed when, on account of his accusation, the penitent suffers some burden distinct from suspicion of sin, whether he truly feels that burden, or at least it would be burdensome to penitents in general if such use of sacramental knowledge were lawful: as if someone, without the faculty of the penitent, should speak with him concerning sins accused.

But especially by c. 890, §2, every use for external governance is prohibited, of knowledge which has been had concerning sins in confession.

Finally an improperly so-called or analogical violation of the seal is had, without use of strictly sacramental knowledge, when something is revealed which brings a burden to the penitent, or renders confession odious, as if, in circumstances in which this is displeasing, you should say that such a one approached for confessing, or should reveal a defect of body or mind.

Less accurate modes of speaking have introduced no small confusion in this matter and have given place to various controversies. In the Code, on the contrary, c. 889 is destined to the seal strictly so called, whose obligation is distinguished in c. 890 from the prohibited use of sacramental knowledge with a burden to the penitent, or from the forbidden violation more broadly accepted.

If we comprehend every violation, even more broadly accepted, but not the analogical, we shall describe the obligation arising from the seal, or the obligation of the seal, as an obligation, inviolable in every case, of keeping silent, even after the penitent has died, concerning things said in order to sacramental absolution, whose revelation or manifestation would render the sacrament burdensome or odious.

— Demonstration. Thesis. By divine natural law itself, given the institution of the sacrament of Penance and of secret confession, there is imposed on anyone receiving knowledge of a matter signified by the penitent for fulfilling the burden of confessing sacramentally, the obligation of the sacramental seal, by which it is prohibited absolutely, or without any exception, to reveal the knowledge thus received, indeed to use it by any reason of which the penitent, on account of some burden, could reasonably be unwilling.

For, for the immediate reconciliation of the Christian with God, Christ, the author of the sacraments, requires confession made to a priest, which at the same time he permitted to be made to him alone, as if to God. And he wished this to be for the remedy of every sin altogether. Therefore he instituted confession and made it necessary for the sole end of one's own salvation and of the grace of the sacrament, simply or better to be obtained through the ministry of the priest. But when a thing has been divinely instituted for one sole end, any use of the thing by which that end is even lightly impeded is an abuse of the thing substantially or accidentally against that end, and therefore intrinsically dishonorable. I say substantially or accidentally against that end, according as the end itself is substantially either corrupted or, although wounded, remains intact.

But every use of knowledge drawn from confession, which it can be in the interest of the penitent not to be made, unless it has been made from the full consent of the penitent, is at least suited to impeding that end, since it renders perfect sincerity, and access itself to the confessor, more difficult. Besides, the order in which sacramental reconciliation is placed is the order of man's relation to God, or quasi-divine. This excellence of order removes every reason for thinking that an exception has been divinely conceded, so that some human good may be consulted. On the contrary, it is established that a slight utility of a higher order must be preferred to every utility of an inferior order. Therefore by natural divine precept every law of the seal is sanctioned with that force which we have said.

This precept is of religion, since it immediately protects man's relations to God. The obligation of justice is also added. For from the fact that he permitted, indeed commanded, that all baptized sinners use that sacrament and therefore make secret confession, Christ gave to all of them an absolutely inviolable right, transcending the order of natural justice, of attempting this remedy by doing whatever seemed to be demanded by them for its perfect use. Therefore the knowledge which was their own before confession, after communication in confession remains their own for every non-sacramental use, and this by force of a sacred right which can be destroyed by no contrary human right, since every human right is of an inferior order. Wherefore neither the safety of the people nor the malice of the penitent removes or diminishes that right.

Thus Christ, while he instituted secret confession according to the discretion and dominion of the penitent, at the same time gave to every penitent a royal safe-conduct, by which at the same time he promised perfect security from every inconvenience or burden extrinsic to confession.

But that this security affects whatever the penitent thinks must be said or manifested for accusing himself is gathered from the manifest intention of the divine Author. For Christ wishes men to use his remedy in the best way. But the more fully the accused manifests himself, by so much the more perfect of itself he permits the account of judgment which is in that sacrament to be. Therefore the law of the seal has the extension which we have described in the formula of the thesis.

Most with us hold that the obligation of the seal is natural, which follows upon the institution of the sacrament; and they think that the root of the absolute and perpetual obligation must be sought in the superior order of that knowledge. But others, with Richard, think that in forbidden communication the guilt of a lie must be detected, since the priest as man knows nothing; others, the guilt of violated fidelity and of a secret tacitly committed; others, the guilt of sacrilege, on account of the sacred nature of that knowledge, or on account of injury done to the sacrament, from which men would be drawn away, if in any case it were lawful to manifest matters accused. This is held by Suarez, Paenit., d. 13, s. 1, n. 7; Lugo, Paenit., d. 23, n. 8-15; d'Annib., III, 358 (8); Ball.-Palm., V, n. 591. - Vasquez, in 3 P., q. 93, art. 4, d. 1, n. 9.10, with whom Coninck, q. 9, d. 2, n. 34, and Tamburini, De sigillo, c. 1, n. 2, agree, think that the rigor of the obligation cannot be explained without a positive precept which Christ added to the natural force of the institution.

There is also one, like Lehmk., II, 586, who seeks help from the danger of hallucination, which we judge superfluous. We do not think that we disagree with St. Thomas. For in Suppl. 3 p., q. 11 art. 1 ad 2 and ad 4, he indicates the source of the obligation in the divine precept which follows the sacrament, and seeks the argument from the quasi-divine nature of the knowledge had by the priest who acts in the place of God.

A fuller explanation of the seal flows down an easy channel from the demonstrated thesis.

— Subject of the Seal. By the seal is bound:

1. The confessor. If he is questioned concerning a matter heard in confession, he can deny, even with an oath, that he knows or has heard the matter, since every question naturally ought to refer itself to his human knowledge, not to quasi-divine knowledge; but if the one questioning maliciously extends it to sacramental knowledge, he cannot expect a serious response, and we are outside formal conversation.

But what if from the denial of the confessor they infer that the confession was not integral? If anything of this kind is to be feared, the confessor should decline a direct response, by saying, for example, that the penitent accused his sins and that he himself fulfilled his office; or, better, if it can be done, he should rebuke the questioner concerning his rash or imprudent interrogation; or simply recall that outside confession he must always be ignorant of what perhaps he heard within confession, so that whether he heard it or not, his response must be the same.

For this reason also, if in a hospital he is asked whether the sick person whose confession he heard is to be communicated or not, let him regularly remit the questioner to the penitent, who has first been taught by him concerning the response to be made, so that he may declare whether or not he wishes to be refreshed by the sacred food. If the sick person asked him that the confessor himself should wish to take care of Communion, let the confessor narrate this mandate of the penitent, while he asks Communion for him;

2. The Superior to whom one to be absolved, or one absolved, from a reserved thing presents himself, or from whom license of absolving is sought;

3. An interpreter, whose help the penitent uses in confession, or he who, within confession, has written the accusation for an uneducated person. Some extend the obligation to him who before confession wrote the sins of an uneducated person, which we think must rather be denied, because he offers his work, which besides is not prescribed, outside confession, nor can confession be judged to have been begun before him;

4. One who by chance, even without fault, has heard something covered by the seal. He who has deliberately raised his ears has already acted against the seal.

They would not be held who heard a confession which the penitent wished to make public. But if, which God forbid, a preacher should violate the seal before the whole multitude, Suarez says, with Lehmk., II, 596, 7, approving, that all are so held to the seal that they cannot even speak among themselves concerning the matter heard;

5. All to whom something has been sacrilegiously or imprudently revealed against the seal;

6. A doctor or another who is consulted with the permission of the penitent; for knowledge is given to him for the end of obtaining absolution rightly. Thus the more common opinion. Some opine otherwise, since the knowledge of that doctor is not from confession. This license given by the penitent permits several conversations until the judgment has been completed (St. Alph., VI, 648).

Wherefore if someone is to be approached to whom restitution must be made, or with whom peace is to be concluded, it will be expedient that the confessor obtain a greater faculty by which the matter may remain sealed only by natural secrecy; and regularly he should accept the burden of such a mandate only under that condition (cf. Lugo, Paen., d. 23, n. 29; Lehmk., II, 596).

Yet he whom the penitent himself consults about making confession is held only by natural secrecy, unless, on account of a manifested will subsequently to confess to him, the consultation seems to put on the account of a begun confession;

7. He who reads a written confession while the penitent is actually using it for confessing.

Several say the same, if one left in the confessional is read. But here I think a distinction must be made. One left by the confessor is without doubt matter of the seal, for it is as it were the revelation of another's confession; but one left by the penitent after received absolution is as it were a new narration of sins, which, whether it was voluntary or involuntary, does not beget the obligation of the seal. If it is not known who left it, the reader will have violated the seal, because he accepts the danger of reading what is truly enclosed by the seal. But the reason which is everywhere given, that the paper in which the sins of a completed confession are contained is as it were a permanent confession, if it was left in the confessional, otherwise if outside, seems to us to be a comparison rather than a reason, and to introduce an arbitrary distinction. Nor, if it is read before use for confession, will there be sin against the seal. For the privileged seal of sacramental confession cannot be extended to non-necessary means which precede confession. It would have to be said otherwise if in confession itself an uneducated person dictated his sins to someone. Cf. Lehmk., II, 597, who nevertheless says that the paper on which the penitent wrote his sins is protected by the seal if the writing is a necessary means for the penitent of making an integral confession. But the penitent is never compelled to make writing before confession. It is manifest that the things which are read on such a paper are protected by natural secrecy, which obliges under light or grave obligation, according as light and not defaming things, or, on the contrary, gravely defaming things, are thus illicitly known (cf. Noldin, III, 410; Gen., II, 384, VIII).

But letters by which absolution from reserved things is sought are protected by the seal.

What if someone confesses to a layman whom he thinks to be a priest? Many hold that that deceiving layman is obliged by the seal, because the penitent opened his conscience in order to confession. That he did this with the intention of confession is not to be doubted. But the order to confession is objectively none without a minister; nor does the intention of a sacrament cause that the sacrament is had. But the seal is destined to the sacrament, not merely to the intention of the sacrament. Therefore the case is different from that of one who hears what is narrated to another confessor in the true use of the sacrament (cf. d'Ann., III, 357).

But without doubt there falls under the seal what is accused to a priest lacking jurisdiction. For that confession may be completed by valid absolution, it is enough that that minister be furnished with jurisdiction.

N.B. 1. By force of c. 1757, §3, 2°, "priests are incapable of bearing testimony as regards all those things which have become known to them from sacramental confession, even if they have been released from the bond of the seal; indeed things heard by anyone and in any way on the occasion of confession cannot even be received as an indication of truth."

And in the civil forum also, the confessor can refuse testimony concerning every matter heard in confession: which for the most part, even if he has obtained permission from the penitent, it will be expedient to do.

The penitent himself is not held by the seal, but he is bound by a graver office of natural secrecy than others, when the matter requires that things said by the confessor be pressed down by silence. Therefore he sins mortally who, excused by no just cause, "betrays those things from which the honor of the confessor is notably injured" (cf. Ball.-Palm., V, 611).

— Object of the Seal. Under the seal fall:

1. all things which the penitent accused as his own sins or purposes of sinning, material or formal, whether rightly or erroneously he judged them such;

2. sins of an accomplice, whether prudently or imprudently detected, in the accusation of one's own sins;

3. denied absolution, without addition, since this virtually betrays a grave accusation. It would be otherwise if, following the custom of some region where it still survives, you were accustomed to hear all three times before absolution, and said: I did not give absolution because he was approaching for the first time;

4. the penance imposed, unless it was very slight, such as is customarily given for the smallest sins: three Ave or Gloria;

5. circumstances of sins, which clothe the narration of sins, unless they were said presuppositively, and it does not matter to the penitent that they be known. Thus if it was an occasion of sinning, very extrinsic to the sin itself: for example, a penitent, attracted by a strange spectacle, therefore omitted Mass. What strange thing happened in the street, you know from it, and you will be able to narrate it without violation of the seal. But you will not be able to narrate illegitimate birth which rendered him irregular and was related in confession. One must proceed cautiously in this matter, lest any suspicion of sin arise. Wherefore let it not be said that the matter was known from the confessional;

6. things which deservedly or undeservedly are added by the penitent so that he may perfect his accusation: thus even virtues and graces received, by which the penitent wishes to show himself fragile, ungrateful.

The common reason is this: because one's own sins are the principal object and the intrinsic end of the obligation of the seal; but full security about accusing sins secretly would not be given, if the obligation did not comprehend all things which the penitent deservedly or undeservedly judged could opportunely be added for manifesting his guilt.

— Sins committed in confession, for example vain glory conceived from very rare faults accused, from the congratulation of the confessor, of themselves are not matter of the seal. For they are not accused. Yet their revelation would contain an indirect violation of the seal: for example, anger revealed, blasphemies of the penitent inject suspicion of a correction on account of grave faults, which gave place to anger.

Still less of themselves are natural defects of the body matter: stench, stammering of the tongue, dullness of mind.

What about scruples and scrupulosity? Certainly, he will have sinned against the seal who said: Titius has these or those scruples, for these were accused as sins. On the contrary, he will not have violated the seal who said of a penitent: he is so good that he sees sins where they are not; for this redounds to the praise of the penitent, and does not betray morbid anxiety. Finally if you merely say that someone is scrupulous who from another source can be known as such, you reveal only a natural defect, nor are you the cause of suspicion or defamation. But if, as many are, he is known as scrupulous from confession alone, because he knows well how to conceal his anxieties, you make use of knowledge drawn from confession which brings a burden to the penitent: which is opposed to the seal. Berardi, Praxis, n. 4947, thinks that for the most part the seal is violated by him who reveals that a penitent is scrupulous.

That virtues and merits do not fall under the seal except by that reason which was recalled in n. 508 is clear of itself.

— The approach made for confessing sometimes will not be able to be narrated without grave sin, but properly, since the very knowledge of such approach precedes confession, it is not matter of the seal. Confession is a fact of which the confessor is a witness, but he does not receive the knowledge from the penitent.

— The condition of the seal is sacramental confession, that is, directed to absolution, at least begun, even if it remained imperfect.

But the manifestation of conscience for obtaining spiritual counsels does not suffice. Nor can any mutual pact or sworn promise, or quality of him to whom the matter is entrusted, press the obligation beyond the terms of a rigorous committed secret (cf. St. Th., Suppl. 3 p., q. 11 art. 2 ad 2).

Much less is a confession merely simulated or made for extorting alms, or for laying snares, protected by the seal. In the latter case, it will be best to rebuke and repel the shameless tempter in a loud voice. But if the hope of alms is an extrinsic end of a confession otherwise sincerely and rightly made, there is no doubt that this is enclosed by the seal.

Nor is protected by the seal the revelation which the penitent has made after the priest has clearly protested that he wishes to receive nothing sacramentally (Suarez, Paenit., d. 33, s. 2, n. 5).

— Obligation of the Seal. 1. Which acts are prohibited has already been declared from the thesis itself in n. 506, and it will be more evident from the examples to be added below.

2. The obligation of the sacramental seal is inviolable (c. 889), and that absolutely, that is, on account of no public or private good to be procured, or evil or damage to be averted, do there become lawful either direct revelation, with the penitent indicated, of a matter which falls under the seal, or the use of sacramental knowledge with danger of such revelation, or the use of the same knowledge with a burden to the penitent. Yet while the use of that knowledge with danger of revelation is simply prohibited, use without danger is not prohibited except with some true burden of such a penitent, or of penitents in general, as is explained in n. 519.

3. Direct revelation admits no smallness of matter. The reason is because every direct revelation contains a substantial perversion of the order divinely sanctioned: that of secret confession. For direct revelation is, from its very notion, an action against the secret.

There is added then the motive which is customarily brought forward: that the faithful would be not a little drawn away from the complete use of that sacrament if they knew that small sins could be narrated, especially since some are easily a cause of ignominy or ridicule, on account of which they would prefer a grave sin of theirs to become known.

4. When there is question of direct or indirect violation more strictly accepted, no use of probable opinion is permitted. The reason is because the sanctity of the royal safe-conduct demands a broad interpretation, but severe opinions which are probable show us how far a broad interpretation extends; and because probable opinion immediately leaves the danger of material violation, which here, on account of the superior order to which that law pertains, cannot be evacuated by a reflex principle. To use other words, here nothing is lawful except what immediately, directly, morally is established to be lawful.

For this reason neither in the present case is there made a derogation from the principles of probabilism, but we are outside the matter to which it is applied: lawful and unlawful. It is not lawful probably to say what a probable opinion says is against the seal, either directly, or by that indirect reason which generates danger of revelation of the sin of the penitent.

5. But in indirect violation, or when the danger of revelation or the burden is very slight and uncertain, it is commonly admitted that there is light matter.

— The seal, introduced for sanctioning the right and security of free secret confession, is constituted in the power of the penitent, who therefore can always effectively or validly give license of speaking outside confession concerning matters accused or narrated in confession, provided:

1. the license is formal. Interpretative license does not suffice, nor presumed license even about the present, on account of the danger of error or imprudence; and virtual or tacit license must be used cautiously. The case is commonly brought forward of a penitent who speaks with the confessor about sins accused in confession: it can happen rather easily that, with the at least tacit assent of the confessor, he wishes as it were to resume the confession protected by the seal. St. Alph., l. 6, n. 151, insinuates that this is rather to be presumed, appealing to Lugo, Paen., d. 23, n. 131 and 133, whose testimony, however, is ambiguous. I said with the assent of the confessor; for just as after the judgment has been completed the confessor cannot without the license of the penitent wish to perfect his judgment (Lugo, d. 33, n. 141), so, that he may resume confession, the penitent seems to need the assent of the confessor.

— Applications. 1. Conversation with the penitent about a preceding confession within a new confession, or immediately afterward, when the judgment is still morally judged to endure, is never opposed to the seal, because the matter is treated in the same sacramental forum, and the prudent administration itself of the sacrament not rarely demands the faculty of recalling former sins to the penitent. Besides, received usage so has it.

Nevertheless, without a reasonable cause, this is not to be done; and if there is only a slight cause for doing it, let the admonition be omitted if annoyance of the penitent is feared.

Conversation outside confession, without the permission of the penitent, is a prohibited use of sacramental knowledge.

— The confessor commits an indirect but strictly accepted violation of the seal: a) who, not from the very beginning of the confession, but when it has already been prolonged, says in a loud voice to a deaf penitent: "Return" or "How often?"; b) who, sitting in the confessional, rises and in a manner which bystanders can observe reads the table of reserved cases; c) who by a visible gesture, by a groan, manifests wonder or sadness; d) who, after hearing confession, immediately leaves the church, in no way solicitous about the penitent's Communion, which, before confession, seemed likely; e) who, of two penitents, for example two brothers, praises one alone, or says that by him only venial sins are brought (cf. d'Ann., III, 262). For he injects suspicion of serious matter, or of grave sin, or of indisposition.

— An indirect violation, broadly or strictly accepted (according as suspicion of grave sin is avoided for the penitent or not), is committed by the confessor who reveals sins heard in confession of some group or place, when some suspicion affects individual persons and therefore the penitent himself; when the reputation of the community itself or of the place is injured. Wherefore he sins who says that in such a monastery, or even by a religious of such an Order, a sin has been committed from whose nature the esteem of the monastery or Order is diminished. Much more, if he should say that there such a crime is frequent. For observe: although no one is ignorant that fragile persons occur everywhere, and that in the most fervent community there can be a traitor, much greater detriment happens to the community when a general and indefinite conjecture is strengthened by the most grave testimony of the confessor.

— Sometimes the quality of the person to whom a thing is said will cause the communication made to be burdensome and unpleasant to the penitent, or not. We always suppose that no suspicion of crime or sin falls upon the penitent himself.

For some more easily than others wonder that such or such things have happened, or, on account of the fault of a few, hold many more lightly suspected. Experience of men will teach an older confessor in no way to esteem the clergy or a monastery less because some have committed lustful acts, while, on the contrary, to learn this will not a little harm the reputation of priests or religious before a layman who did not even suspect that these things could happen in the sanctuary.

If two confessors who together receive confessions of the same part of the clergy, so that they have heard the same class of men, communicate to each other their judgment about their moral condition, neither will add anything to the knowledge of the other, so that that conversation, certainly never to be advised, can be immune from every violation of the seal; on the contrary, the same conversation held before those who have not heard those penitents would lessen the esteem of that clergy.

But even with the danger of violating the seal excluded, the very account of a certain equity and grateful charity sufficiently exhorts us not to abuse another's confidence for mingling conversations which are contrary to the order or family of our penitents.

— As to the defamation of a place: today in several regions there is so great a diversity of religion and morals, or of thinking and acting, that they seem to lack as it were their own name or reputation, so that the crime of one, even enormous, in no way infects the other inhabitants.

Yet it will be more shameful if you say that a hidden vice, a venereal disease, dominates there. Formerly, under this respect, they distinguished from larger places those which numbered fewer than three thousand inhabitants.

Nevertheless it is lawful from things heard in confession to take occasion for inveighing against vices which exist everywhere in some degree, for example lust. Yet to manifest hidden things with detriment of the place is wicked. Therefore practically it is never opportune that by the aid of confession the arguments of sermons be selected. For vices not hidden are known from elsewhere; hidden vices, however, are corrected not without danger.

By equal reason he who, as pastor or confessor, is questioned by a preacher about the vices which are especially to be remedied, should give information according to those things which he has learned by human knowledge, but should not give reports which he has acquired for himself only as the minister of Christ. He will act more prudently, he will avoid scruples and anxieties for himself, and he will obey more the direction of the Holy See (cf. Lehmk., II, 602; Ball.-Palm., V, 657).

— Even with every danger of revelation or detriment to reputation which the community or place would suffer excluded, nevertheless, outside confession, every use of the knowledge of confession with a burden to the penitent is prohibited (c. 890, §1).

And this absolutely, as is clear from the proposition prohibited by Innocent XI, through a decree of the Holy Office, November 18, 1682 (Denz., 1220). But the burden must be understood either as that which the penitent truly and formally experiences, or as that which he would connaturally experience if he had known that that use of knowledge had been made. Wherefore:

1. the Code itself, c. 890, §2, forbids every use which for external governance would be made of reports about sins had in confession, "both by Superiors existing at the time and by confessors who later shall have been appointed Superiors";

2. unless a faculty has been obtained, it will be against the seal to deny a vote to him whom from confession alone you know to be unworthy, or to remove the same from office; to dismiss a servant, a fellow boarder; to commit to someone a difficult and unpleasant task; to show a harsher face to the penitent, or because of things heard in confession (not strictly on account of a natural defect known otherwise than from the accusation of sins, for example stammering, an obscure manner of speaking) to decline him, and no longer admit him to making confession.

— Within confession the confessor can indeed impose those things which must be imposed on the penitent by every confessor, but nothing beyond. Wherefore he cannot order a thieving servant to leave his house.

When asked to hand over a certificate about confession having been made, the confessor can hand it over, and of itself should, to anyone who at least seriously began confession. Yet denial of the certificate will not be against the seal, except in rare external circumstances in which, on account of comparison with other penitents to whom it is given, suspicion is injected of denied absolution (cf. Ball.-Palm., V, n. 601-605).

— On the contrary, it will not be against the seal, not even indirectly, to do those things which, without any danger of revelation, cannot but be pleasing to the penitent, as to act with him more gently, mildly, benignly.

Lugo, Paen., d. 23, n. 308, thus solves the case, which he calls common, of a priest who from confession knows that snares are being prepared for him, so that he may be killed the following night, or that there is poison in the wine with which he must celebrate: he can flee or omit Mass without doubt, "when that action or omission would not show others the knowledge of the sin, nor bring any damage to the penitent which would render confession odious or burdensome: for then he could indeed flee under another pretext or omit the sacred rite." With the same conditions posited, he who from confession has learned the harms of his negligence could in an ordinary manner render himself more cautious in domestic administration.

Concerning the certainly metaphysical case of a confessor who confesses to another confessor, his penitent, that he is not a priest, and yet wishes to continue hearing confession, Lugo, in the same place, n. 105, has these words: if from the use of that knowledge there would result at least some indirect revelation or also some dishonor or inconvenience of my penitent, "I would be bound... to confess seriously to another, but to him only externally or certainly with the intention only conditionally of obtaining absolution, namely, if he is a priest."

You could also, with Tamburini as witness, c. 6, §2, provided the penitent himself is not impeded or feels inconvenience from it, place certain ordinary impediments to sins: for example, close a door, windows, through which you know someone is to go out for sinning. But, lest any wonder of the penitent arise, do not do these things unless the permission of the penitent has been obtained in the confession itself.

Can the confessor warn the Superior that he should watch? The circumstances will have to be weighed very prudently.

Wherefore it will be preferable to ask permission from the penitent, which he, if he is well disposed, will easily concede.

Cases of the penitent who perseveres in the will of committing a crime against the confessor can offer a different solution, if the circumstances certainly reveal that the penitent has come not for accusing sins but for tempting the confessor.

— Yet only the exterior use of sacramental knowledge is prohibited. For the Lord did not wish to impose on the confessor a function of unbearable weight. Wherefore internally to remember or think over the sins accused, to acquire experience of men and dexterity of acting from confessions heard, will be opposed to no account of the seal.

Nor is there use of knowledge where the knowledge is merely the occasion. Wherefore he will sin by curiosity, not by sacrilege, who, after hearing confessions, asks the sacristan about the name of the person who approached for confessing, unless from that a suspicion of some grave sin could easily arise.

Nor is the seal violated by saying what all know, or what by the very fact of approaching the confessor the penitent virtually betrays, as if you say that Peter accused his venial sins. But to define the venial sin accused (for example, his lies), or to indicate that they were grave or serious, would be a direct violation of the seal.

— An impatient, scrupulous, tedious manner of acting in the confession itself will not be against the seal, but it can be sinful by another reason, even gravely, if it renders the use of the sacrament odious, or has given cause or occasion of abandoning the sacraments.

— Canonical Sanctions. 1. We have already recalled above, n. 507, N.B., the prudent disposition by which c. 1757, §3, 2° makes confessors incapable of judicial testimony.

2. The confessor who shall have presumed directly to violate the sacramental seal is punished by excommunication reserved ipso facto most specially to the Apostolic See. He who shall have violated the seal only indirectly is liable to penalties ferendae sententiae, of suspension, incapacity, privations, indeed, in the graver case, of degradation itself (cc. 2369, §1 coll. with 2368, §1). I understand indirect violation as more strictly accepted. For the Code, c. 890, distinguishes the use of knowledge acquired from confession from the violation of the seal, of which c. 889 treats.

3. Rash, and therefore conscious, violation of the seal committed by other persons is said to be punished, according to the gravity of the guilt, by a penalty which can even be excommunication (c. 2369, §2).

— N.B. 1. The older authors must be read cautiously about this argument, since they less considered as contrary to the law of the seal the use of sacramental knowledge which, even if it should give no suspicion of sin, nevertheless brings a burden to the penitent. Thus St. Thomas himself, Suppl. 3 p., q. 11 art. 1 ad 3. Cf. St. Alph., l. 6, n. 656, 657.

2. Although we must be very cautious, nevertheless it is always necessary that our obedience remain reasonable. Wherefore we can give no place to a probable conjecture of the sin of some penitent; yet we ought not to avoid "all conjectures which clever and malicious men are accustomed to pursue" (cf. d'Ann., III, 362; Ball.-Palm., V, n. 672; St. Th., Quodlib., 5, art. 13).

3. Because every danger of reluctance of the penitent, or of wonder of hearers, which things in this matter must especially be attended to, is absent, Berardi, Praxis, 4959, seems to us deservedly not to disapprove him who, after hearing a public sinner in danger of death, in order to console the family, should say that the sick man confessed with great contrition and many tears, although these words prove indirectly that great sins were accused (cf. Tambur., Praxis exped. conj., c. 3, n. 15).

— 4. By the Instruction of June 9, 1915, which was promulgated by mission to the individual Ordinaries, and is founded on the presumption of danger and of easy scandal of the faithful, the Holy Office disapproved the manner of acting of those who, even with the danger of every revelation of the penitent excluded, narrate cases had in confession, even those which can serve for edification. For the faithful who hear these things come to less esteem for the sacramental seal; it is easy that among the bystanders someone may think that his own case is being recounted, so that the sacrament in some way becomes odious to him. Therefore the Sacred Congregation commands that the Ordinaries of places and Superiors restrain abuses of this kind; and for the future take care "that priests subject to them be taught never to touch anything pertaining to the matter of sacramental confession under any form and under no pretext, not even in passing, neither directly nor indirectly, neither in public nor in private conversations, especially on the occasion of missions and spiritual exercises."

Nevertheless necessary or useful consultations are not prohibited on this account.

Therefore to this seem to pertain these most grave warnings of the supreme Congregation: a) that priests abstain from those conversations by which, among themselves, at table, they mingle discussions about strange cases heard in confession, about sinners who had not confessed for many years, and this especially in missions, where there is an easier occasion of imprudence of this kind; b) that in sermons they report nothing as heard in confession, unless they expressly mention the permission given; c) that they not publicly narrate things which seem able to be known through confession alone, unless adding that the things were known to them by another way.

— I. The sacramental seal can be called a sign divinely imposed on secret confession, by which it is protected from every violation.

The obligation of the seal is the obligation, inviolable in every case, of keeping silent, even after the penitent has died, concerning things said in order to sacramental absolution, whose revelation or manifestation would render the sacrament burdensome or odious.

Direct violation is made by the open narration of a thing which is protected by the seal, with designation added of the person to whom the thing pertains.

Indirect violation is committed by a speech or narration which, made for another end, creates danger of manifestation of this kind: whether the matter is indicated without designation of the person, or the person without indication of the matter, but with danger lest the one from the other somehow be known or conjectured.

Every use also of sacramental knowledge is prohibited which either the penitent himself, or penitents in general, would bear unwillingly. Therefore the obligation of the seal extends beyond the obligation of preserving a secret. This use pertains to a certain account, more broadly accepted, of indirect violation.

An analogical violation of the seal is contained in the manifestation or revelation of a thing which indeed is not protected by the seal, when that manifestation brings a burden to the penitent or renders confession odious.

The obligation flows from divine natural law itself, consequent upon the institution of the sacrament of Penance and of secret confession: it pertains to religion and at the same time to justice.

II. By the seal are bound: the confessor, the Superior to whom one to be absolved, or one absolved, from a reserved thing presents himself, or from whom, either orally or in writing, permission of absolving is sought; an interpreter, or he who, within confession, writes the accusation for an uneducated person; one hearing by chance something closed by the seal; all to whom a thing has been wickedly revealed; a doctor who, with the permission of the penitent, is consulted; he who reads a written confession, at least while the penitent uses it for confessing.

The penitent is not held by the seal: yet he would sin mortally who by indiscreet words notably injured the honor or reputation of the confessor.

III. The object of the seal is: 1° all things which the penitent rightly or wrongly thought had to be accused, not excluding graces and virtues mentioned for showing fragility or for disclosing an ungrateful soul; 2° sins of an accomplice, accused at the same time in one's own accusation, directly or indirectly; 3° circumstances of sins, unless, extrinsic to the sin and said for supplying some useful prior knowledge of a non-secret thing, they can be manifested without any inconvenience of the penitent; 4° all indications of grave or special sin: as denied absolution, penance, unless it was very slight. This is said so that full security may be made firm for the penitent.

Thus sins themselves committed in confession, even if of themselves they are not the object of the seal, will have to be concealed lest indirect revelation be feared. Defects of the body are not matter of the seal; scruples easily can be, as if someone is known as scrupulous from confession alone.

Access for confessing is not matter of the seal, but sometimes it is protected by grave natural secrecy.

IV. The condition of the seal is confession made, or at least begun, in order to absolution.

V. Firmness. The obligation of the seal is absolutely inviolable, so that on account of no public or private good does revelation, whether direct or indirect, become lawful.

Nor does direct violation admit smallness of matter, since every such violation is against the divinely sanctioned order of secret confession. Nor, when there is question of direct or indirect violation (properly so called), is any use of probable opinion permitted; because, in this matter of a superior order, the danger of material violation cannot be evacuated by any reflex principle. In indirect revelation smallness of matter is admitted.

VI. Cessation. The obligation of the seal can be removed by permission of the penitent which is formal, free, not revoked. Permission can be indefinite or circumscribed to certain persons. Nor is use beyond the end for which it was conceded permitted. Yet the obligation fully ceases if the penitent repeats completely outside confession the things said in confession, or has declared that he wishes all things to be known as if outside confession.

Immediately after confession, or in another confession, the confessor speaking with the penitent about his confession does not violate the seal, but he could be guilty of imprudence.

VII. By revealing sins of a place or community, the confessor can indirectly violate the seal, if suspicion from that reaches the penitent himself. And if from that the reputation of the place or community is injured, the confessor has illicitly used knowledge from confession. The quality of the person to whom certain things are indicated can cause the communication to be or not to be burdensome or unpleasant to the penitent. It is lawful also to take occasion from confession for inveighing against vices which exist everywhere in some degree.

Use which cannot but be pleasing is not opposed to the seal, with danger of revelation excluded: as if you act more gently with the penitent.

Finally only the exterior use of sacramental knowledge is prohibited.

VIII. Sanction. The confessor who shall have presumed directly to violate the seal is punished with excommunication latae sententiae most specially reserved to the Holy See. Indirect violation, strictly accepted, renders the confessor liable to various penalties. Rash, and therefore conscious, violation effected by other persons is punished by a penalty which can even be excommunication.

Priests are incapable of judicial testimony as regards all things which they know from sacramental confession; indeed, not even as indications can any things be received which have been heard by anyone and in any way on the occasion of confession.

IX. The Holy Office, by the Instruction of June 9, 1915, wished to take care lest priests mingle conversations among themselves about strange cases, about conversions; lest they publicly report certain things as heard in confession, unless mention is made of the permission obtained; or seem publicly to narrate things which they have known from confession alone, unless they could indicate another source of knowledge.

I. Name. In sermon 58, which in P. L. is placed under the name of St. Peter Damian, but which rather seems to be ascribed to Nicholas of Clairvaux (1176), we read: "Let him (the priest) see, moreover, that he never makes any mention, or consents to anyone speaking, concerning those things which he has received under the seal of confession" (P. L., 144, 833). Thus he hands down to us at the same time the universal obligation of the seal and the name which it received in the Middle Ages.

II. The antiquity of the obligation. Secret confession, permitted even in the first centuries, carried with it so manifestly the obligation of not divulging those things which had been committed to the good faith of the priest or bishop, that there can be no doubt concerning the consciousness of this obligation had even then. Therefore, according to Sozomen, the penitentiary ought to be a prudent man, a lover of silence (Hist. eccl., 7, 16, P. G., 67, 1459); and in St. Ambrose they praised the fidelity by which he covered faults known to him from confession (Vita, XXXIX, P. L., 14, 40); and around the year 400, Asterius of Amasea promised security concerning the preservation of reputation and esteem to penitents (P. G., 40, 369). Cf. Galtier, Dict. d'Apologet., v. Pénitence, n. 127. But no one who knows that we, even in the explicit knowledge of matters of faith, are subject to the law of progress, will wonder that by degrees a more distinct and complete account of this sacerdotal office was acquired, and that the doctrine concerning the sacramental seal was fashioned by successive increments. And so:

Past opinions. 1. Concerning the origin and peculiar nature of sacramental secrecy, for a rather long time nothing was said explicitly. At the end of the ninth century, Hincmar of Reims (880) warns that by the oracle of the Holy Spirit it is known to have been provided that the secret must be kept. He himself forbids Communion to be denied to one who openly denies the crime which he has confessed: "For what is it to be unwilling to communicate with one who has confessed a crime, except to publish the confession of the crime?" Supposing a priest who, after having taken an oath about telling the truth, is questioned concerning a sin known to him from confession: "placed between two dangers, he chose to neglect the lesser concerning the oath, so that he might avoid the greater, lest he become a betrayer of confession" (P. L., 126, 625, 634, 675. De divortio Lotharii et Tetbergae). Lanfranc (1089), after he had extolled how intimate the communication between confessor and penitent is in these most beautiful words: "Two consciences pass into one, namely that of the one confessing into that of him to whom he confesses, and that of the one judging into that same one who is judged," not obscurely calls upon the peculiar reasons of divine law in this reprobation of the violator of the secret: "He violates the sacraments of confession, because he does not believe the penitent baptized by confession; and, as far as is in him, he destroys the second Baptism, that is, confession; nor does he guard the unity of conscience, nor does he fear that God has come together in his judgments. He sins against the unity of the Father and of the Son, since, by whatever publication, he has divided the unity which is between God the Father and the Son, represented to himself in the one confessing... He blasphemes against the Holy Spirit when he reveals what was entrusted to him in the faith and advocacy of him who is the remission of sins, showing that with him the Holy Spirit is not an advocate" (P. L., 150, 626, 628). Observe how he insists upon the taking away of sins through the use of the sacrament, so that one absolved can no longer truly be called a sinner; and he wishes to have as unsaid what, on account of the unity of the two, remained as it were in the sinner's own conscience.

2. Is the force of this secret so absolute that it suffers no exception? Certainly St. Raymond, in the Summa, labors in the case of a heretic who confesses heresy from which he does not wish to withdraw, and refuses to denounce heretics. Some, as he says, think that it can be said to the bishop: "watch over your sheep, because there is a wolf in your flock." But he himself seems to permit revelation "both because that man does not do penance (since he does not wish to be converted), and because he does not keep faith, since he is a heretic and an infidel: therefore faith is not to be kept with that man." And many other things, he adds, can be said.

There were also not lacking those who excepted the case in which revelation was necessary for protecting the king or the republic. And, while James I was reigning, on May 3, 1606, Garnet, S.J., when he had refused to reveal a conspiracy known to him from confession, died as a martyr of the absolute obligation of the seal.

3. With regard to the extension of the obligation, is it enough to avoid the danger of revelation, or are certain uses of sacramental knowledge forbidden even without such danger?

In the first centuries it was permitted to the prudent judgment of the confessor that he impose public penance even for secret sins: which today would be said to be forbidden by the seal. Yet it can be explained by the consent of the penitent, who, if he was using the sacrament, was judged to accommodate himself to the received usages concerning penance (cf. Galtier, l. c., n. 125, 126).

But, with the danger of revelation removed, down to the seventeenth century most permitted that the confessor use sacramental knowledge either for the good of the penitent, for example, for taking away from him an occasion of sin, or for the good of the community, for example, for keeping away a harmful subject. Yet already Claudius Acquaviva, in the year 1590, prohibited superiors of the Society of Jesus from every use of sacramental knowledge for government; this Clement VIII forbade to all superiors in the year 1593. Finally, on November 18, 1682, the Holy Office judged that the proposition was altogether to be prohibited which permitted the use of knowledge acquired from confession with a burden for the penitent, if a greater burden of the same penitent would follow from non-use (Denzinger, n. 1220).

By an excess also in the opposite direction, Scotus, in IV Sent., d. 21, q. 2, ad 1, denied to the penitent himself the faculty of efficaciously dispensing from the obligation of sacramental secrecy; and Richard of Middleton, in IV Sent., d. 21, art. 4, q. 1, marked as a lie a revelation made with the consent of the penitent, since human knowledge concerning the matter was lacking.

III. Canonical sanctions. 1. St. Leo the Great (450, Ep. to the bishops throughout Campania, c. 2 etc., P. L., 54, c. 1210) determined that in every way the presumption, which he says is contrary to the apostolic rule, of demanding a public recitation of sins, should be removed, since secret confession suffices: "For that confession suffices which is first offered to God, then also to the priest who approaches as intercessor for the offenses of penitents."

2. At the end of the ninth century the Paenitentiale Summorum Pontificum punishes the violator with perpetual exile. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215), in the celebrated chapter Omnis utriusque sexus concerning annual confession, punishes the violator of the seal with perpetual confinement in a monastery (Denzinger, n. 438, or c. 12 De poenitentiis et remissionibus (V, 38)). Afterward, however, St. Raymond has these things concerning this: "If he has done this, let him be deposed and go wandering in ignominy all the days of his life" (Summa, De poenis, L. III). Finally the Code, c. 2369, §1, strikes the confessor guilty of direct violation of the seal with excommunication reserved to the Holy See in a most special manner; it makes the one guilty of indirect violation liable to various penalties, as also the interpreter and the persons to whom knowledge has come, if they have rashly violated the secret. (Cf. on this argument R. P. Kurscheid, O.M., to be cited with other writers in the Bibliography, t. IV).

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.

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

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

You will resolve:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

³⁹⁴ c. 12, X 5, 38.

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

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

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

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

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

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

³⁹⁶ This argument is impugned by Scotus and others.

³⁹⁷ Cf. St. Thomas, l.c., a. 1 ad 1.

³⁹⁸ c. 2, dist. 6, De poenit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁴⁰⁶ Denz., n. 1220.

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

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

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

b) For the good of the commonwealth.

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

c) For the good of religion.

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

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

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

⁴⁰⁸ Ibid., n. 660.

⁴⁰⁹ Ibid., n. 658.

⁴¹⁰ Ibid., n. 633.

447. e) Injury to the seal can occur in two ways: directly and indirectly. The seal is directly violated if the matter of the seal and the person of the penitent are revealed; for example, a confessor says: Peter confessed to me the sin of homicide. The seal is indirectly injured if, from those things which the confessor says or does, a proximate danger arises of learning the sin of the penitent or of rendering the sacrament odious. Hence, for an indirect violation of the seal it is not required that the penitent and his sin actually be manifested, but it suffices that this can probably occur.

alpha) A direct violation of the seal admits no smallness of matter and is always a grave sin both against justice, because the confessor injures the quasi-contract of concealment entered into and not rarely diminishes the reputation of the penitent, and against religion, because he renders the sacrament of penance odious. A confessor who presumes directly to violate the sacramental seal is punished with an excommunication reserved in a most special manner to the Supreme Pontiff.⁴¹¹

beta) An indirect violation of the seal admits smallness of matter, because the danger arising from it can be very slight and therefore does not always constitute grave fault. But if grave fault was present, this violation can be punished with the gravest penalties, namely, with the same penalties as the crime of solicitation to shameful things, for example, suspension from the celebration of Mass and from hearing confessions, privation of benefices and dignities, and so forth.⁴¹²

Some ways in which the seal is indirectly violated:

1. If the confessor relates that sins of lust are rampant in some college or convent or small village, which he indeed does not know except from confession. For then infamy redounds upon the whole community, and it can rather easily be suspected who committed such a sin. Hence a confessor addressing a small community ought not to describe some particular sin in such a way that the penitents rightly think this is done because of confession. But if the community is large, for example, containing more than 3,000 inhabitants, and the confessor has heard a great number of confessions, he would not injure the seal if he spoke concerning some particular sin heard; but even then he would act most imprudently.

2. If, in relating something from confession, the confessor describes such circumstances that the penitent can probably be recognized. Celebrated is that example of a parish priest who, after twenty-five years of priesthood, relates in company that his first penitent confessed adultery to him. A little afterward a man enters and relates in the hearing of all: I was your first penitent.

3. If the confessor admonishes parents that they should watch their daughter especially in these circumstances, while he knows from confession that the daughter sinned in these circumstances.

4. If the confessor, after hearing a confession, changes his manner of acting toward the penitent, for example, by addressing him with harsher words, taking the keys away from him, or rebuking the accomplice of the penitent.

5. If the confessor refuses a "certificate of confession" where such a certificate is in use. For from this it is easily inferred that the penitent was not absolved. Therefore the confessor is bound to give a certificate even to an indisposed penitent who insistently seeks it (provided he truly and not fictitiously confessed); but on it he should not write: received absolution, but: confessed.

6. If the confessor refuses to hear the confession of some penitent for the sole reason that he knows him from a preceding confession to be scrupulous or indisposed.

⁴¹¹ Code of Canon Law, c. 2369, § 1.

⁴¹² Ibid.

448. Admonition. Most excellently, in an Instruction of the Holy Office sent on June 9, 1915, to all local Ordinaries and Superiors of religious and regular Institutes, confessors are commanded "never to dare to touch, especially on the occasion of Missions and Spiritual Exercises, upon anything belonging to the matter of sacramental confession, under any form and under any pretext whatsoever, not even in passing and neither directly nor indirectly ... in their public or private discourses." Hence let confessors never intermix in common conversations words concerning things heard in confession, nor relate the scruples, inward vexations, and absurdities of those confessing, even when the name of the penitent is withheld, under the pretext that things of this kind are not sins. In one word: Let the confessor speak concerning matters of confession only with God, by praying for the penitents. For the sake of obtaining counsel, he can indeed sometimes prudently consult another learned confessor, but let him avoid every danger of injury to the seal. Otherwise, let him first obtain the permission of the penitent. Let him not use knowledge drawn from confessions except for procuring his own salvation more efficaciously and for exercising greater dexterity in the governance of souls. But every other use of this knowledge which is joined with a burden to the penitent is gravely prohibited, although danger of revelation of the sacramental secret is absent. Hence such knowledge can in no way be employed for external governance.⁴¹³

⁴¹³ Code of Canon Law, c. 890.

1860. The SACRAMENTAL SEAL, or the seal of confession, induces an obligation of keeping silent, even before the penitent himself, both about sins and about all other things manifested in confession, in order to absolution.⁷

Principles. I. There is a most strict obligation of preserving the seal of confession inviolably. It is clear: 1. From natural right, which commands that it be preserved both by title of fidelity, and by title of justice, and by title of religion; whence it happens that the violation of it includes in itself a threefold sin: namely the sin of sacrilege against the Sacrament, the sin of infidelity against an onerous, although tacit, promise of preserving a secret, and the sin of detraction, if the delicts of the penitent were not public. - 2. From positive divine right, at least implicit; for from the institution of Christ confession ought to be secret; therefore by that very fact the obligation of preserving the seal was imposed by Christ on confessors. - 3. From ecclesiastical right, as is clear from several places of Canon Law, especially from the Fourth Lateran Council, c. 31, Omnis utriusque sexus, where it is said: "Let him beware altogether (the confessor), lest by word or sign, or in any other way, he betray the sinner in any respect. But if he should need more prudent counsel, let him cautiously seek it without any expression of the person." - Nevertheless, the confessor is not bound in this matter to avoid every empty suspicion, but only a probable one.⁸

We said a most strict obligation; and indeed in truth: 1. It is most strict, because it does not admit smallness of matter, for the reason that matter, even the very lightest, includes the whole rationale of the precept. Exception: if the danger of revelation is little probable; in which case, if a revelation should follow, it should be censured to follow from a fortuitous event. - 2. It is most strict, because it never admits any exception; for if it ever admitted any, penitents would always have to fear lest such a sin would be that cause for licitly breaking the seal; therefore the Sacrament would be rendered odious. Hence the obligation of the seal urges, although, with it remaining inviolate, greater damage would follow to the penitent (thus from the decree of the Holy Office issued on November 18, 1682, by mandate of Innocent XI); although the manifestation would serve for exterior governance, without the penitent noticing in any way (thus from the decree of Clement VIII, issued May 26, 1593); although it is a question of the revelation of one venial sin; although otherwise the confession cannot be made entire (e.g. if the penitent cannot be questioned without the voice being raised); although it is a question of avoiding one's own death or that of others, indeed although the safety of the whole kingdom should be endangered.⁹ - 3. It is most strict, because it forbids using, in this matter, a probable opinion; for this would be to the prejudice of a certain right which another possesses, etc. Wherefore the confessor is held to the seal, even in doubt whether something was said by the penitent in order to confession.¹⁰ - 4. It is most strict, because it perseveres in force even after the death of the penitent; for each one, even after death, wishes to be held good.¹¹ But if anyone should teach or believe that this seal does not oblige gravely, he would have to be DENOUNCED, as suspected of heresy.¹²

1861. II. 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; because this, and this alone, includes the rationale of the precept. - It is said, 1. from every sacramental confession; whether already completed, or begun, valid or invalid and sacrilegious; whether absolution is given, or not. - 2. From only sacramental confession; wherefore there is no obligation of the seal if someone approaches the confessor with the intention of deceiving him, mocking him, drawing him into sin, or extorting something from him. - But if someone approaches him not for this end, that he institute confession, but that he make complaints, or that he ask counsel, the priest indeed ought to keep silent about the things heard, not however from the obligation of the sacramental seal, but from the obligation of natural secrecy alone. Similarly, if someone outside confession should commit a secret matter to a priest, with this formula added, "under the seal of confession," the obligation would not exceed the obligation of a committed secret.¹³

With these things having been premised in general, the following must be weighed: 1. Who are held to the seal; 2. what things fall under the seal; 3. when the seal is not injured; when it is injured.

1862. Principle. All are held to the seal, to whom NOTICE of sacramental confession has COME in any way whatever, whether from the confession itself, or from means ordered to it. The reason is that, if Christ had not bound the obligation of the seal to confession, however heard, He would not have sufficiently provided for penitents; for confession would be very odious if penitents knew that their sins revealed in confession could ever be revealed by someone. Besides, a thing passes with its own burden; therefore that notice also passes with the obligation of the seal.

Therefore, there is held: 1. The confessor, as is clear. - 2. A simple priest, who pretends himself to be a confessor; indeed also a layman, who was held to be in place of a priest. - 3. A Superior, to whom one absolved from a reserved case presents himself by law, or from whom permission of absolving from a reserved case is sought. - 4. An interpreter, or one who, asked by another, for instance by an uneducated person, etc., wrote his confession. - 5. One who furtively, or by chance, although inculpably, hears something. Thus bystanders are held to the seal, in whose presence confession is made from necessity, as in shipwreck, in battle. But otherwise, if the penitent, for his own confusion, wishes to confess publicly. - 6. All to whom something from things heard in confession has been revealed sacrilegiously or imprudently; hence concerning this they cannot even converse among themselves. - 7. A doctor or another, who is consulted with the permission of the penitent; for although the notice of the sin is directly manifested to him for the instruction of the confessor, nevertheless indirectly it is manifested also in order to absolution to be imparted and the Sacrament to be perfected.¹⁴

1863. Questions. Q. 1. Whether one is held to the seal who READS A PAPER in which the penitent WROTE the confession?

Resp. 1. Of itself he is not held; the reason is that that writing is not confession, but preparation for confession; nevertheless it induces the obligation of natural secrecy, and indeed under grave sin, unless it is a question of the very lightest faults.

Resp. 2. Per accidens he is held to the seal, if such a paper necessarily pertains to confession: e.g. 1) if a mute person confesses by writing to a confessor present, and by chance another reads it; because then the reader in reality draws the notice of sins from his actual confession; - 2) if someone by letter should seek from a Superior permission for a reserved case, and another should read it; - 3) and the same must be said if someone reads a paper relating not to a confession already made, but prepared for making confession to a priest; because that presentation is a certain begun confession.¹⁵

Q. 2. Whether a doctor consulted by the penitent himself is held to the seal?

Resp. 1. Affirmatively, if he is consulted about confession to be made before that very one, and if the penitent manifests his faults to him; because this consultation is to be held as a begun confession.

Resp. 2. Negatively (although there is an obligation of natural secrecy), if it is a question of confession to be made before another. The reason is that the obligation of the seal arises from sacramental confession alone, in which the penitent actually manifests his sins in order to obtaining absolution. Thus more probably, against some who reject this opinion for this reason, because, they say, such a revelation would render confession odious; but this reason is not of great moment; for, as St. Alphonsus excellently observes, not confession itself, through a revelation of this kind, would be rendered odious, but the consultation.¹⁶

Q. 3. Whether the PENITENT is held to the sacramental seal with respect to the confessor?

Resp. Negatively, "because the seal was instituted only in favor of penitents, not of confessors." Nevertheless the penitent is held to natural secrecy concerning those things whose publication could bring either damage to the confessor, or injury or contempt to the Sacrament. "But to me," says St. Alphonsus, "penitents seem to be held to this secrecy (although natural) more strictly than others; for others voluntarily provide counsel, but the confessor is bound to provide it from office... Hence the penitent is more rigorously held to beware lest damage come to the confessor on account of counsel given to himself."¹⁷

1864. Principle. The matter of the seal is constituted by all and each of those things HEARD IN CONFESSION, whose revelation would render the Sacrament of Penance ODIOUS to the faithful, and whatever the penitent REASONABLY does not wish to be manifested by the confessor.

Hence, UNDER THE SEAL there fall: 1. All the sins of the penitent, both mortal and venial, both present and past, both occult and manifest, provided they were declared in a truly sacramental confession. - 2. The circumstances of sins, even those explained after absolution, whenever they were disclosed in order to confession: e.g. if one illegitimate by birth has received Sacred Orders. - 3. The objects of sins: e.g. if someone confesses that he hates his mother because of her adultery, or because she was unwilling to correct his brother concerning theft: the adultery and the theft fall under the seal. - 4. The sins of an accomplice, even imprudently manifested in confession. - 5. The penance imposed, unless it is minimal, namely that which usually is imposed for the very lightest venial sin. - 6. All things which would expose the penitent to mockeries and would turn the faithful away from the Sacrament, such as natural defects, ignorance, incapacity, etc. - 7. Virtues and revelations, when they are disclosed to the confessor in order to manifest some defect committed, or one's own ingratitude toward God; but otherwise, if they are manifested so that the state of the soul may become known to the confessor.¹⁸ Hence, in a Cause of Beatification, attestations of the confessor are judged licit and useful, although not necessary.¹⁹

1865. Questions. Q. 1. Whether the SCRUPLES or SCRUPULOSITY of the penitent fall under the seal?

Resp. Affirmatively, if the manifestation would redound to a burden for him, as would happen if such a thing were said of a Prelate, of a confessor, and the like. - But otherwise, if it were said of some secular persons, for whom this would rather redound to praise.²⁰

Q. 2. Whether sins fall under the seal which the penitent committed IN THE CONFESSION ITSELF, for instance sins of impatience, of insult against the confessor, or against others?

Resp. Negatively of themselves, because the penitent does not confess such faults, but commits them while the confessor sees. Ordinarily, however, they fall under the seal per accidens, because they involve danger of revelation; for they provide an indication from which it can be conjectured with a certain probability that the confessor either was unwilling to absolve, or noticed something in the penitent on account of some graver fault.²¹

1866. The seal IS NOT INJURED: 1. If the confessor says in general that the confession was about light matter; otherwise, if he said that it was about several venial sins, or named some fault, although minimal, in particular.

2. If he praises the conscience of the penitent. But let him beware lest he give suspicion of the bad conscience of others, who perhaps at the same time confessed to him.

3. If he says that someone confessed before him, provided the penitent by word or deed, e.g. by approaching secretly, did not signify that he wished to keep his confession occult. Likewise, if he says that he absolved such a one, provided this does not cede to the prejudice of others, about whom he does not say the same.²²

4. If he says in general that he heard such a sin in confession, yet in such a way that those hearing can by no means come to knowledge of the penitent. - Nevertheless it is always more advisable to abstain from utterances of this kind, because it can happen that the hearers (especially if they are also confessors) come to knowledge, or at least suspicion, of the penitent.

5. If he uses notice which he had outside confession. But here also one must proceed cautiously, because thereafter, where there is no revelation, there can be danger of scandal, since bystanders easily believe that matters are revealed from confession heard.²³

6. If he uses the notice of confession where no revelation intervenes, nor is any burden brought upon the penitent.²⁴ Hence the confessor can well, from that notice, reform his own morals, pray for the penitent, conduct himself more benignly toward him, consult books and wise persons, temper rigor, direct himself in questions, guard himself from dangers and occasions of spiritual or temporal damage, instruct others or admonish them in general to take care for themselves, abstain from the celebration of Mass in a polluted church, etc., provided that (as was said) every danger of revelation or burden is absent.²⁵

7. If he manifests something with the previous permission of the penitent. For since the seal is in favor of the penitent, nothing prevents him from yielding his right. Hence St. Thomas:²⁶ "The penitent can bring it about that what the priest knew only as God, he may know also as man: which he does when he licenses him to speak. And therefore if he speaks, he does not break the seal of confession."

But concerning this PERMISSION OF THE PENITENT several things occur to be noted, namely:

1. The permission must be: 1) "formal and express; for presumed, tacit, interpretative, and virtual permission (even for the good of the penitent himself) does not suffice;" - 2) free and altogether spontaneous, not arisen from force, injury, deceit, or importunate prayers, or reverential fear; - 3) not revoked; for the penitent, according to his own pleasure, can revoke it even without cause. The reason for these things is that it is a question of a very odious matter, in which permission is not wont to be given so easily. Wherefore, it is to be sought by the confessor only when a grave necessity is urging, and then only when it can be presumed with certainty that the penitent will consent willingly. For it is ordinarily clear that a priest who outside the tribunal recalls his sins to the penitent is gravely troublesome to him, and renders confession odious to him.²⁷

2. Having obtained such permission, the confessor can also correct or admonish others, e.g. the accomplice of the penitent, etc. Ordinarily, however, it is not expedient that he ask such permission; it will be better if he induces the penitent to open this to him outside confession; indeed, it will be better still that the penitent himself bring the matter to another who can bring a remedy to the evil.²⁸

3. In fact, permission is given when the penitent himself outside confession begins to speak about sins declared.

4. Within the confession itself, no permission is required. The reason is that it pertains to the office of the confessor to make mention of past things, whenever it is judged to profit the penitent, e.g. to reprove him concerning relapse. - And the same is licit immediately after absolution has been given, because the sacramental judgment is censured still to endure morally.²⁹

1867. Questions. Q. 1. What ought the confessor to do when he detects that the penitent is DEAF or HARD OF HEARING?

Resp. St. Alphonsus:³⁰ 1. "If he notices the deafness of the penitent around the beginning of confession, let him impose on him that he return at another time and suitable place, where the confessor can speak freely, lest others hear.

2. "But if he notices this in the progress of confession, and after several due questions the penitent does not respond rightly, then it is not licit for the confessor, in a loud voice, to impose on the penitent that he return, in such a way that those standing around would hear this; because great suspicion would be given to them that he had confessed grave matter. - And therefore, in such a case, I think the counsel is that the confessor, understanding the sins in the better mode in which he can, [impose a light penance and] absolve: absolutely indeed, if the penitent is probably censured disposed; but under condition, if there is doubt about the disposition."

Q. 2. What ought the confessor to do if he NEEDS counsel?

Resp. If danger of revelation is present, either let him propose the case in a fitting mode, e.g. as fictitious; or let him ask from the penitent permission of using sacramental knowledge; or let him have recourse to some learned counselor, to whom the person of the penitent is altogether unknown; or let him remit the penitent to another confessor, etc. - But if he can use none of these means, let him trust in God, and, with prayer and study diligently applied, let him solve the difficulty himself, in the better mode in which he can.³¹

Q. 3. In what way ought the confessor to RESPOND to INDISCREET questions?

Resp. 1. If he is questioned concerning sins heard, he can rightly affirm, even with an oath, that he has heard nothing; for concerning all things which he received in confession, he has no communicable knowledge. Thus commonly with St. Thomas, who says:³² "He can swear that he does not know what he knows only as God." And this is valid even if he should be asked to respond without equivocation.

Resp. 2. If he is questioned whether he gave absolution or not, let him respond: I have discharged my office; or better, by way of rebuke: Are such questions to be asked? - But if, absolution having been denied, he were asked by a cleric whether the penitent is going to communicate, let him respond: Ask him whether he wishes to communicate. And in like manner parents, teachers, masters, etc., are to be referred to the penitents themselves, when they inquire whether absolution has been imparted to sons or subjects.³³

Q. 4. In what way must one act with an INDISPOSED person asking for a CERTIFICATE of confession or of absolution?

Resp. 1. If he asks for a certificate of CONFESSION outside confession, it cannot be denied to him, whenever he truly instituted sacramental confession; because through such a denial it would be revealed indirectly that the penitent had not confessed rightly. But otherwise, if he had simulated confession, e.g. for avoiding punishment or infamy, for snatching a certificate; for in this case the obligation of the seal would not exist, and it would be asserted mendaciously that such a one had confessed. But it is never licit to lie.

Resp. 2. If he asks for the same certificate in the confession itself, or before he withdraws from the confessional, it must be conceded whenever he truly has confessed at least one sin, and a certificate is wont to be given, or is required by the Superiors of the penitent, e.g. before matrimony, in paschal time, in Colleges, etc. For the same reason is valid as above. - But otherwise, if he asks for it compelled by no necessity; because, in such a case, denial brings no burden, or danger of revelation.

Resp. 3. If one not absolved asks for a certificate of ABSOLUTION, the confessor cannot write it, because it would be to lie, as is clear. - "If however certificates were already printed, in which (imprudently indeed) it is asserted that absolution has been imparted, it seems probable, as some more recent authors say, that it can be handed to those confessed but not absolved, at least if they ask publicly; because then the confessor utters or writes no lie, but only performs a material act, by handing such a certificate."³⁴ This opinion, since it favors the seal, can be held in practice.

1868. The seal IS INJURED directly or indirectly: directly, if something is openly and expressly manifested which falls under the seal; indirectly, if the confessor so bears or speaks himself that others can know or suspect a sin or defect of the penitent, or of others, or any other things known through confession, from which, whether to the penitent himself or to others, shame, annoyance, dishonor, damage, or any burden whatever would come.¹ But if the sayings or deeds of the confessor after confession are held indifferently by penitents, the seal is not injured. In doubt whether danger of revelation or of offense is present, the safer part is to be held, i.e. the seal is to be preserved, as we admonished above (n. 1860).² These things having been premised, we say:

I. By WORDS the confessor indirectly violates the seal: - 1. Who addresses the penitent in so loud a voice that those standing around understand, from his responses or admonitions, what the penitent has confessed. - 2. Who says that he denied absolution to someone, or that he had not yet absolved him, or that he imposed on him a grave penance. - 3. Who, out of several penitents joined together among themselves by close relationship or kinship, as if they are brothers, greatly praises one or two, no word having been made about the others. - 4. If, in narrating some fact, he mentions such circumstances that the penitent can easily be recognized from them. - 5. Who admonishes the parents or Superiors of the penitent that they watch especially in such a place and time. - 6. Who speaks with another confessor concerning a sin which the penitent confessed to both. - 7. Who, after hearing the confessions of few persons, says that he heard such a sin, although he conceals the person; for each one suffers something of suspicion against himself from that revelation. - 8. Who says that he heard a grave sin in such a monastery, even if he does not name the person; or if he says that the Superior of the monastery does not watch sufficiently over his subjects; because such words stain the reputation of the whole Community. A fortiori, he would violate the seal who said that grave sins are committed in that Convent. - Likewise, if he said this concerning an Order of stricter observance, or concerning a Religion little spread, which namely would number fewer than three thousand members. Otherwise, if he should speak thus concerning some Religious in general, or concerning an Order much spread and notoriously relaxed, every danger of suspicion concerning some monastery in particular nevertheless being excluded.³ - 9. A preacher who, in a Community or in a village or small town, i.e. below 3000 persons, names vices in species (although public) known to him only from confessions, by saying e.g. "here blasphemy reigns; here many are thieves, onanists, etc."; or in some monastery: "here sacrileges are committed." Likewise, if, speaking concerning a town of inhabitants below 6000, he should name a sin bringing infamy, e.g. by saying: "In this place sodomy, adultery, etc., runs rampant." Otherwise, if he should speak thus concerning a larger city, or if he should rise up against sins already known to himself and to others from elsewhere.⁴

II. By DEEDS the confessor breaks the seal: 1. Who denies a certificate of confession to those asking for it outside confession; or within confession, if the certificate is required by Superiors, or is wont to be conceded to all (cf. n. 1867, q. 4). - 2. Who after confession looks at the penitent with hostile eyes, speaks with him less amicably than before, or by his manner of acting manifests that he remembers his sins, is actually thinking about them, and makes him of less account than before. - 3. Who, without another sufficient cause, shrinks from hearing a penitent whom, from a preceding confession, he knows to be troublesome, scrupulous, indisposed, etc.; yet otherwise, if the penitent were commonly known as too prolix in confessing, and at the same time of good conscience.⁵

1869. Questions. Q. 1. Whether a priest who from confession knows that snares are being prepared for him can FLEE, or in another way take precautions against DAMAGE?

Resp. In the affirmative, if from such a caution the sin confessed is by no means manifested to others, nor any burden brought upon the penitent. Otherwise, if from the circumstances it could be conjectured that the flight occurred because of notice received in confession; for flight would be an indirect revelation of the sin confessed. And although the confessor should simulate flight from some pretext, nevertheless he would always inject some reasonable suspicion of the sin confessed.⁶

Q. 2. Whether it is licit for SUPERIORS to use the notice of confession FOR EXTERNAL GOVERNMENT, if in no way it appears that they direct themselves from that notice?

Resp. Negatively, because this would evidently cede to the burden of penitents, who, if they knew that this were licit, certainly would be drawn back from confession. It is clear from the decree of Clement VIII, May 26, 1593, § 4,⁷ and the decree of the Holy Office issued by the authority of Innocent XI on November 18, 1682, by which the opposite opinion was expressly proscribed.⁸

Hence: 1. It is never licit to use the notice of confession, for removing an unworthy person from office, for denying him the suffrage of election, for denying Sacraments to a sinner, for taking keys away from a servant, etc. But the Superior can, indeed ought (as any other confessor), against an evil which becomes known to him in the forum of penance, to bring a remedy in the same forum, by obliging the penitent, if the common good requires this, to external manifestation.

2. It is not expedient to consult confessors when it is a question of someone to be promoted; for from this, as Croix well notes,⁹ many inconveniences and dangers are born. And generally Confessors ought to testify only to the frequency of the Sacraments.

The Seal of Confession is a religious obligation of preserving secrecy concerning those things which are known from Sacramental Confession.

We must treat 1° of the obligation of the seal; 2° of the subject of the seal; 3° of the object of the seal; 4° of the various modes of violating it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1492. Principles. - I. Primarily every confessor is held to the seal, whether true, or fictitious and through error esteemed legitimate, and consequently even a layman who would feign himself a priest and hear Confession. The reason is that as often as someone confesses in order to the Sacrament, whoever hears him by that very fact contracts the obligation of the seal; otherwise hatred of the Sacrament would follow thence. - Thus all.

II. Secondarily those who become participants in Confession are held, or all those to whom knowledge of the Confession comes in any way whatsoever, whether from the Confession itself, or from means ordered to it. It is said: 1° from the Confession itself; for the matter accused came to their knowledge by the same occasion or cause on account of which the obligation of the seal is given, namely lest hatred be created against the Sacrament. It is said: 2° from the means; for hatred of the means redounds upon the end itself.

Hence the following are held to the seal: 1° interpreters employed in performing Confession; 2° Superiors from whom, outside the Sacrament, a faculty is sought of absolving or of receiving absolution from a reserved case; 3° those who, while someone is confessing, hear a sin, whether deliberately or even inculpably, and likewise if some should perhaps hear it from these; 4° those who write the Confession of the uneducated, or of those ignorant of the language of the confessor, especially if the Confession cannot be made in another way; 5° doctors consulted by the Confessor, even with the license of the penitent; 6° all those to whom the confessor sacrilegiously or imprudently had manifested sins heard in Confession.

1493. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Whether the penitent also is bound by the seal with respect to the confessor?

Resp. 1° He is not held to the Sacramental seal, because the obligation of the seal is only in favor of the penitent.

Resp. 2° But he is held to the natural secret concerning those things which he cannot reveal without unjust damage to the confessor, or contrary to his reasonable will, or without injury and contempt of the Sacrament.

Quaer. 2° Whether the confessor can speak with the penitent concerning his Confession?

Resp. 1° He can speak in Confession concerning all past Confessions. Let this nevertheless be done cautiously and from sufficient reason, lest perhaps the penitent be offended.

Resp. 2° He can also speak after absolution before the penitent has departed, or if afterward he has returned. The reason is that although the Sacrament has been completed, nevertheless the judgment still morally perseveres.

Resp. 3° Outside the Sacred Tribunal, he cannot make even any word at all with him without the penitent's license concerning those things which pertain to his Confession. Except if the penitent himself first speaks concerning his conscience, i.e. concerning those things which were the matter of Confession. But then the confessor ought not exceed the matter about which the penitent made words.

Quaer. 3° Whether he is held to the seal who reads a paper in which the penitent wrote a Confession?

Resp. 1° Negatively, per se. The reason is that this is not a means of itself ordered to Confession, and consequently it does not per se bring in the obligation of the Sacramental seal, but only of the natural secret; yet this per se presses under grave, unless there is question of the lightest faults.

Resp. 2° Per accidens the obligation of the seal can be present, if the paper were or had been a necessary means to Confession: for example if it were written by a mute person, or directed to a Superior on account of some reservation; likewise if the paper had already been handed to the priest; but especially if someone were to read it while it is in the hand of the confessor, or in the act of Confession, or it had been lost by the confessor himself, or found in the confessional; for in these cases it pertains to Confession.

Quaer. 4° Whether a doctor consulted by the penitent himself is held to the seal of Confession?

Resp. Negatively, at least more probably, if he is consulted concerning Confession to be made to another; but he is held only to the natural secret. The reason is that the obligation of the seal arises from Sacramental Confession alone, in which the penitent manifests sins in order to absolution. - St. Alphonsus, against some who therefore affirm, because revelation would render Confession odious. But, as the holy Doctor deservedly replies, not the Confession itself, but the consultation would become odious.

I said: if he is consulted concerning Confession to be made to another; because if the penitent consults him concerning Confession to be made to himself, he is held by the seal, since this consultation must be regarded as Confession begun.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resp. See n. 1369. q. 6°. Hence 2°.

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

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

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

1497. - The seal can be violated in a twofold mode: 1° directly, by revealing expressly something pertaining to the secrets of Confession, for example if it is said: Titius did this, etc.; 2° indirectly, by saying or doing something from which someone can know or suspect either the object of the seal, or from which the Sacrament is rendered odious, or shame, trouble, disgrace, damage, or any burdening whatsoever can arise for the penitent or for others, for example accomplices.

Rule I. - The seal is violated indirectly as often as penitents or others can deservedly be offended by the sayings or deeds of the confessor from knowledge had from Confession alone. But it is not judged to be violated if the penitents would have these things indifferently, and there is no question of the proper matter of the seal. The reason for each is sufficiently clear from what was said above. - Thus commonly.

Rule II. - In doubt whether in such a mode of speaking or acting there is present danger of revelation or offense, one must stand for the safer part, or in favor of the seal. - Thus commonly; and it is clear from what was said above n. 1491. q. 2°.

Rule III. - There is no violation of the seal if someone narrates a sin heard in Confession in such a way that by no indication can the sinners be revealed. Nevertheless, excluding the usefulness of instruction or of asking counsel, one must generally abstain from similar narrations. The reason is that lay hearers, especially the simple, easily are scandalized, suspecting that the seal is violated. And sometimes in these frequent and mixed conversations there is danger lest someone be brought into suspicion of the penitent, indeed that revelation also follow.

1498. Resolutions. - He indirectly violates the secret of Confession:

1° Who, praising one above the others whom he heard, says that he committed only venial sins; because others thence are easily brought into suspicion of mortal fault.

2° Who speaks with others concerning the sin of a penitent known through Confession alone, though these know it from elsewhere, even if the hearers do not notice that it was received from Confession.

3° Who says that he did not absolve such a one, that he sent him back to such a time, or that he has not yet absolved him, or that the Confession has not yet been completed; the reason for the last is that a long Confession ordinarily denotes many sins, or the indisposition of the penitent, unless it were known to be a general Confession, or one resumed after a long time, and the penitent not bear this with difficulty. Likewise he who concerning Titius, known as a thief, says that he confessed to him his thefts with great contrition.

4° Who in a loud voice, or in another way intelligible to the bystanders, reproves the penitent; for this is both grave for the penitent and suggests to others the suspicion that he confessed grave sins; but a fortiori if by raising the voice too much he were to repeat the sins of the penitent, or question concerning their circumstances.

5° Who speaks with another confessor concerning the sins of some penitent, even if he had confessed the same sins to each.

6° Who, after hearing the Confessions of few persons, says that he heard such a sin, although he conceals the person; for the individuals suffer something of suspicion against themselves from that revelation. Likewise he who narrates sins known from Confession in such a way that hearers can by some reason conjecture or suspect who committed them.

7° Who, narrating the sins of some person which he knew outside Confession, adds some circumstance known from Confession alone, or who uses the knowledge of Confession to determine or confirm the matter more.

8° Who would say that in such a monastery he heard a grave sin, even if he did not name the person; because the individual Religious of that convent suffer detriment. A fortiori he would violate the seal who would say that in that convent, or even in that Order, such sins are committed. - But it is otherwise if he would say that he heard a grave sin of some Religious in general, without naming his Order, because there is neither revelation of the seal, nor does it redound to the burdening of the penitent or of any Order, since among various Orders there are not lacking some less good Religious. Resolve the same if he were speaking of a grave sin of only one Religious, naming the Religion, provided the Religion is large and notoriously relaxed, and sins of this kind are such as are accustomed to occur among the relaxed, and in this one have notoriously occurred, and also all danger of suspicion concerning some monastery in particular is absent. - But scandal of lay persons must be carefully guarded against.

9° Who after Confession looks at the penitent with a stern eye, does not speak to him as he was accustomed to do before, and shows by harsher words, gestures, or his whole manner of acting that he remembers his sins, is actually thinking about them, and makes less of him than before.

10° Who would decline the Confessions of a penitent because this one, for example, is accustomed to approach less well disposed, unless there is present a just cause altogether independent of Confession.

1499. Questions. - Quaer. 1° Whether the Confessor can deny Communion to a penitent to whom previously he denied absolution, if this one approaches the Sacred Table, or assistance at the Matrimony of him whose impediment, or Ordination to him whose irregularity, he knows only from Confession?

Resp. Negatively. See n. 1229.

Quaer. 2° Whether he breaks the seal who says that such a vice reigns in a city or village, or that grave crimes are committed there?

Resp. Distinguish. Affirmatively, if the place is sufficiently narrow, for example if it does not contain about three thousand men, i.e. Catholics. Otherwise, if the town is large, and public crimes are often committed there.

Quaer. 3° Whether preachers can use knowledge of Confession for speaking about those things concerning which they would not have thought, unless they had heard Confessions?

Resp. Affirmatively, with danger of revelation and burdening of the penitents excluded. The reason is, 1° because it can be a burden to no one that sometimes priests direct themselves in sermons from the knowledge of Confession, provided that here and now that burden is not present: therefore they can generally inveigh against vices which secretly spread abroad; 2° because for the confessor this would be too grave a burden; for he would always fear lest in preaching he use the knowledge of Confession. Nevertheless let the confessor beware lest he speak publicly about entirely particular sins of one or another penitent, especially if he has the sermon before some small community, for example in a monastery of Nuns, etc.; because then a burdening could easily be induced. Moreover Missionaries cannot reveal to the Pastor grave sins heard in Confession in general, that he may watch more. - Yet, according to St. Thomas, "the confessor can say to the Prelate that he should watch more diligently over his flock, yet in such a way that he does not say anything by which by word or nod he betrays the one confessing."

Quaer. 4° Whether a priest who from Confession knows that snares are being prepared for him can flee, or in another way forestall damage?

Resp. 1° Affirmatively, if from such caution the sin accused is not at all manifested to others, nor is any burdening brought to the penitent.

Resp. 2° Negatively, if he cannot flee without in some way manifesting that some sin had been accused by the penitent. The reason is that that flight would be an indirect revelation of a confessed sin; and, although the confessor might simulate flight under some pretext, nevertheless he would always furnish a reasonable suspicion of the sin declared. Lugo nevertheless notes that experience shows that a revelation, even indirect, is never necessary for escaping those dangers, since they can be met either from the license of the penitent or in other ways without breaking the seal.

Quaer. 5° Whether Superiors can use knowledge of Confession for external governance, if it in no way appears that they direct themselves from that knowledge?

Resp. By no means, with St. Alphonsus and others commonly against some older Theologians who defended the affirmative opinion. - The reason is that evidently this would yield to the burdening of penitents; and those who knew that such doctrine was everywhere taught could be drawn back from Confession. See the Decree of Clement VIII, p. XVII. XVIII.

Quaer. 6° Whether at least sometimes, or when, the confessor can use knowledge of Confession?

Resp. According to all Theologians, this can be done in the following cases: 1° for praying for the penitent, or acting more benignly toward him; 2° for consulting books or wise men, prudently however, with danger of revelation excluded; but if this danger is present, he who needs counsel should either propose the case in a suitable manner, for example as fictitious, or ask license from the penitent for using Sacramental knowledge, or seek elsewhere a learned counselor to whom the person of the penitent is altogether unknown, or remit the penitent to another confessor, etc. But if no means is at hand by which the seal may remain intact, nothing remains except that the Confessor, relying on divine aid and employing other suitable means, namely prayer and study, resolve the difficulty himself in the better manner in which he can; 3° for directing himself through experience acquired from Confessions, for example for increasing or tempering rigor, and for directing himself from the Confession of one toward prudently questioning or instructing others, giving no suspicion of the prior Confession; 4° for reforming his own morals, for correcting his own defects, or for performing his office better, for example for shaking off sluggishness, for watching more vigilantly over subjects, with suspicion of revelation excluded, etc., because everyone is held to correct his defects as soon as he notices them; nor can any penitent reasonably be offended because the confessor, on account of things heard in Confession, changes his life for the better.

Conclusion. - In a matter so grave, and so dangerous, the confessor must be supremely cautious lest he utter any little word, or do or hint anything, whence there could follow hatred, even the least, of the Sacrament, burdening of the penitent, offense or scandal of any others whatsoever. Therefore let him be prudent and discreet not only in words, but in his whole manner of acting.

Let him frequently pray with the Psalmist: Set, O Lord, a guard to my mouth, and a door of circumstance to my lips; or with the Wise Man: Give me wisdom, the assistant of thy seats. - Above all let Missionaries beware, and all who, for example in the Prayers of Forty Hours, assist Pastors extraordinarily, of imprudences, of useless loquacity, of boasting concerning many general Confessions heard, concerning great fish caught, etc. But especially let them see that they say nothing concerning anything heard or done in the tribunal of Penance in the midst of gatherings of priests or during dining, notably in the presence of a woman serving at table.

After the act of confession there are three offices or obligations of the minister; a) of themselves:

1. of preserving the sacramental seal;

2. of not using, with burden to the penitent, the knowledge received in confession;¹

¹ The seal or secret to be preserved is one thing; the obligation of not using knowledge acquired in confession, even without lesion of the secret, is another. This latter is rather inaccurately called by some the accidental seal; indeed many treat of each together promiscuously and without distinction. Nevertheless they must be distinguished: namely, the seal obliges much more strictly than the other; besides, the obligation of the seal is special, concerning which St. Thomas expressly treats; the other obligation is general, of not causing burden, which comes to be declared according to common principles, concerning which nothing special occurs in St. Thomas.

b) accidentally:

3. of supplying defects and correcting errors.

I. From the properly so-called violation of the seal there differs the exterior use of any knowledge had from confession, which can also be present without anything being revealed, while violation properly so called is always done with some direct or indirect revelation of those things which fall under the seal. This use, without permission of the penitent, is generally illicit, because of itself or accidentally it could generate confusion, shame, evil suspicion, or some harm, disgrace, annoyance, damage, or any burden whatever to the penitent or to another (Clement VIII, 26 May 1593; Innocent XI, 18 Nov. 1682); not only

a) if there is danger of direct or indirect revelation;

but also b) if from it there follows a moral or material burden of the penitent or of another, and therefore hatred of the sacrament, which is also true if from non-use a much graver damage of the penitent would follow (Innocent XI, 18 Nov. 1682); and

c) if suspicion of the violated seal arises, and therefore scandal.

But in other cases the confessor can use this knowledge of his, because it is not properly a breaking of the seal nor of itself repugnant to the seal.

Hence can. 890: "1. The use of knowledge acquired from confession with burden to the penitent is altogether prohibited to the confessor, even with every danger of revelation excluded.

"2. Both superiors existing for the time being, and confessors who afterwards have been announced as superiors, can in no way use, for exterior governance, knowledge which they have had concerning sins in confession."

Moreover the aforesaid illegitimate use is a mortal sin from its own genus, because from its nature it is born to cause great burden and grave scandal, and thus to render the sacrament very odious; nevertheless it admits lightness of matter, for example, if the burden arising from it is very moderate.

II. From this the following rules are easily established concerning the use of knowledge drawn from confession:

A. As regards the penitent himself as such:

1. It is illicit outside confession to address the penitent concerning things known from confession, unless with his permission: this causes shame and renders the sacrament odious.

2. On the contrary it is licit, a) if the penitent speaks first, because he implicitly gives permission,

b) immediately after absolution, because the judgment is morally continued,

c) in following confessions, where the priest is the minister of God, if it is in some way useful to the penitent or expedient for the rectitude of the present confession: for the past state has some relation to the rectitude of the present judgment.

3. It is illicit to reveal sins committed in confession (even not accused), natural or moral defects, of body or soul, manifested from confession alone, indeed gifts known from confession alone, if it is with burden to the penitent: for example, that he is illegitimate, a eunuch, falsely noble, of the race of Jews or magicians, poor, burdened by debts, ignorant, incapable, less skilled in an art, rude, dull, scrupulous in a case in which this does not fall to the praise of the penitent; - on the contrary it is licit, if it is known also outside confession, for example, that he is stammering, lame, deaf, or is of such condition.

B. As regards exterior governance:

1. Superiors cannot use knowledge acquired in confession, even if it does not appear that they direct themselves from such knowledge, and even if the penitent does not notice this: it is to the burden of penitents, if they knew that this is licit.

Thus they cannot use knowledge to remove an unworthy man from office, to deny him a vote of election, to deny sacraments to a sinner, or assistance at marriage on account of an impediment, to take away keys from him, to eject a pregnant maidservant or one committing thefts, to denounce or institute an inquiry.

2. Likewise the confessor himself cannot look upon the penitent with hostile eyes, address him less amicably than before, manifest by his manner of acting that he remembers the sins, make less of him than before, correct him, address him harshly, show him a severe countenance.

Indeed neither may he therefore refuse to hear the one confessing because from the preceding confession he knew him to be troublesome, scrupulous, entangled in conscience, or tenuously disposed, unless he has an external cause distinct from confession, for example, if the penitent were commonly known to be too prolix in confessing, or he did it on account of another motive. Yet the confessor can dismiss him at the beginning of confession, if he is not disposed or seeks irrationally; likewise he can admonish him in confession not to call upon him thereafter.

3. Hence the confessor is not to be questioned by parents, teachers, etc., concerning the morals of their penitents; nor consulted where it concerns admission to religion or promotion to Orders, but let him testify only to the frequency of the sacraments.

C. As regards morals exclusively his own:

1. The confessor can, on account of knowledge of confession, reform his own morals, better perform his office, pray before God for the penitent, or act more kindly toward him, consult books or wise men, temper rigor, direct himself in interrogations, guard himself from danger and occasions of spiritual or temporal damage such as death, plots, or poison, watch his flock more diligently, instruct others or admonish in general that they beware for themselves, indeed abstain from the celebration of Mass in a violated church or with poisoned wine, provided that he gives no notion to others of the sin accused or of its accusation, nor inflict burden on the penitent, for example, because others know not from this but from elsewhere, or the priest abstains or departs under another pretext. Yet in doubt let permission of the penitent be sought.

Thus, even if the penitent or others perhaps notice that it arises from knowledge of confession. "The reason is," says Haine, o. c., q. 117, "because thence the penitent suffers no shame or inconvenience, nor would men reasonably be drawn back from confession on account of this, nor finally is the action or omission of the confessor a revelation of the seal, since it is supposed to be so indifferent that others ignorant from elsewhere cannot thence come into knowledge of confessed sins. Hence if they do come into knowledge, this rather arises from the previous knowledge which they have, than from the action or omission of the confessor."

In truth, the case which would present difficulty is rather metaphysical, says Lugo, de Poen., disp. 23, n. 110, since a means of escaping these dangers will never be lacking, either by the permission of the penitent or from some pretext.

2. Preachers can speak about those things of which they would not have thought unless they had received confession; not however concerning the particular sins of penitents in small communities.

III. Observations. - 1. Concerning the certificate of confession to be given or denied, let it be noted: a) such a certificate can always be given to all those who truly intend sacramental confession, whether absolved or not absolved; - b) the certificate cannot be denied to an indisposed penitent who truly confessed, if he asks for it outside confession; because thus the confessor would use knowledge of confession with burden to the penitent; - c) likewise it cannot be denied to a penitent asking for it in confession, provided that the penitent is placed in circumstances in which it is customarily given, because it would indirectly be a violation of the seal, since it would be revealed that the penitent was not duly confessed; - d) it must always be denied to those who simulate confession, even if this happens for obtaining the certificate: for then no obligation of the seal is present, indeed by giving the certificate the confessor would mendaciously say that the penitent was confessed; yet on account of grave inconveniences he could say that such a one approached him or that he heard him in the confessional; - e) testimony of absolution granted cannot be written for him who was not absolved, because it would be to lie; yet if a printed certificate imprudently showed testimony of absolution, it would have to be handed over even to him who was not absolved, at least if generally it is customarily handed over, or he himself publicly asks: thus on account of the seal; nor would the confessor lie, but he would place only the material act of handing over (or signing) the certificate on account of a proportionately grave reason, in circumstances which sufficiently indicate the restriction.

2. Concerning seeking counsel. - If the confessor needs counsel in a difficult case: a) he can recur to a theologian to whom the penitent is altogether unknown; - b) if this cannot be done, let him propose the case in such a way that the danger of revelation is avoided, that is, as fictive, by omitting adjuncts not necessary, from which the penitent could be known, and by mixing false things which do not change the substance of the matter; - c) or, if it is not conveniently done thus, let him ask from the penitent permission of taking counsel and speaking with another concerning a matter pertaining to confession; - d) but if this is denied, and in no way can he avoid danger of revelation, let him send him to another confessor, or if this can be done only with difficulty, study and prayer having been diligently employed, let him trust in God and solve the difficulty himself in the best way he can.

3. Concerning conversation about things heard in confession. - Lest confessors easily be exposed to danger of illicitly using knowledge of confession, and be held breakers of the seal, from greater prudence the Holy Office established generally that they should not converse among themselves about things confessed as such or make public discourse. Thus in the instruction of 9 June 1915, which nevertheless is not proved to have the character of a strict law, since in no way is it referred to in the Acta S. Sedis, nor in the annotations of the Code, nor in the Sources of the Code of Law. But at least it contains a most grave admonition.

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).

628. The second obligation is not to use exteriorly any knowledge acquired in confession. - The exterior use of any knowledge had from confession differs from a violation of the seal properly so called; this use can also be present without anything being revealed, while a violation properly so called of the seal always occurs with some direct or indirect revelation of those things which fall under the seal. This use, without the permission of the penitent, is generally illicit, as Clement VIII, May 26, 1593, and Innocent XI, November 18, 1682, declared, insofar as per se or per accidens it could generate confusion, shame, bad suspicion, or some injury, dishonor, annoyance, harm, or any burden whatever for the penitent or another; not only

a) if there is danger of direct or indirect revelation;

b) but also if from this there follows a burden for the penitent or for another, and therefore hatred of the sacrament, which is also true if from non-use a much graver harm to the penitent would follow, as Innocent XI declared;

c) or if a suspicion of a violated seal arises, and therefore scandal.

But in other cases the confessor can use this knowledge of his, because it is not properly a breaking of the seal nor per se repugnant to the seal.

Hence can. 890: "§ 1. The use of knowledge acquired from confession is altogether prohibited to the confessor, with burden to the penitent, even with every danger of revelation excluded.

"§ 2. Both superiors existing for the time being, and confessors who afterward shall have been appointed superiors, can in no way use, for exterior governance, the knowledge which they have had about sins in confession."

The aforesaid illegitimate use is a mortal sin from its genus, because from its nature it is apt to cause a great burden and grave scandal, and thus to render the sacrament very odious; nevertheless it admits lightness of matter, e.g., if the burden arising from it is moderate.

From this the rules concerning the use of knowledge drawn from confession are easily established:

A. As to the penitent himself as such:

1. It is illicit outside confession to address the penitent about things known from confession, without his permission: this causes shame and renders the sacrament odious.

2. On the contrary it is licit a) if the penitent speaks first, because he implicitly gives permission;

b) immediately after absolution, because the judgment is morally continued;

c) in following confessions, where the priest is minister of God, if in some way it is useful to the penitent or expedient for the rectitude of the present confession: for the past state has some relation to the rectitude of the present judgment.

3. It is illicit to reveal sins committed in confession (even not accused), natural or moral defects, of body or soul, manifested from confession alone, indeed gifts known from confession alone, if this is with burden to the penitent: e.g., that he is illegitimate, a eunuch, falsely noble, of the race of Jews or Magi, poor, burdened with debts, ignorant, incapable, less experienced in an art, uncultivated, dull, scrupulous in a case in which this does not fall to the praise of the penitent; - on the contrary it is licit, if it is known also outside confession, e.g., that he is stammering, lame, deaf, or is of such a condition.

§ 1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore let the confessor diligently beware lest by word or sign or in any other way and for any cause whatsoever he betray the sinner in any degree (Can. 889).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I say. He indirectly violates the secret of confession:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the proper place of confession?

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

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

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

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

I. QUESTION I. By what right are confessors bound to guard the secret of those things which they have heard in confession? ANSWER. By a threefold right — natural, divine, and ecclesiastical — as all teach. Against these three rights a violator would sin. This seal arises from sacramental confession alone, by which a penitent in good faith manifests his sins to a priest for the obtaining of absolution, although on account of the penitent's indisposition or a defect of the confessor's jurisdiction absolution be not imparted. If anyone should confess to one feigning himself a priest, that man would be obnoxious to the seal.

II. If anyone should feign a confession, and under the mask of confession provoke to base things, or affect a priest with injuries, or attempt some crime by the priest's ministry, no seal would arise hence. Similarly when something is communicated under the seal of confession, even if, the knees being bent, the Confiteor be said, no sacramental seal arises, but only a natural one. From confession alone therefore, ordained to the obtaining of absolution to be given at its own opportune time, does the sacramental seal arise.

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

IV. QUESTION III. Can a confessor speak of things heard in confession by the penitent's leave? ANSWER. It is certain that a penitent can impart the said leave to the confessor, since the seal is in favour of the penitent himself. Wherefore, just as a penitent can of himself manifest his own sins, so he can grant leave to another to do this. This leave of the penitent must nevertheless be free and express; nor does an interpretative or presumed one suffice. Sometimes a penitent is bound under grave fault to grant this leave, as for the averting of some grave evil threatening the commonwealth or another.

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

VI. QUESTION IV. What ought a confessor to answer when asked whether he has heard the confession of a harlot, a concubine, and so forth? ANSWER. He ought to answer that he has heard her confession and has performed his office. What if a harlot should ask for a schedule or testimony of confession? Some deny that it is to be given. But this opinion is to me false. The confession was made, as is supposed. If the confessor should say that he had not absolved her, he would break the seal, as all confess. He who denies the schedule in fact says that he did not absolve her. Tell me: why is this schedule to be denied? Because the harlot was not absolved? If this reason held, there would be no seal save when absolution is imparted — which is a manifest error. The schedule therefore of the confession heard is to be given, because this is not a testimony of absolution.

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

VIII. Nor can a confessor speak with his own penitent concerning things heard in confession without his express leave. If the penitent himself of his own accord begin to speak, express leave is understood. Immediately after absolution given he can admonish, exhort, and correct the penitent, because the sacramental judgment still perseveres.

IX. A confessor cannot use knowledge had in confession for exterior government. Clement VIII in the year 1594 forbade Regulars to use the knowledge of confession for exterior rule. Which decree Urban VIII confirmed, constitution 16. Wherefore it is inferred: 1. That a confessor cannot abstain from the sacrifice, or flee, when he has learned in confession from some partner of a crime that snares are being prepared for him, or poison poured into the chalice, if the accomplices of the offence should conjecture that the crime had been revealed by one of the partners. 2. A confessor cannot deny the Eucharist, or the blessing of matrimony, to a penitent before one or another rightly demanding it, even if he denied him absolution. 3. He cannot interdict from sacred things a subject priest, or reject one canonically elected, on account of crimes detected in confession; nor avoid one excommunicated for the killing of a cleric manifested in confession.

X. A husband, his wife being unwilling, receives priesthood. In the article of death, hearing his wife's confession, he understands his marriage to be invalid and null. The feigned wife recovers. The debt is asked: ought the husband-priest to render it, since the feigned wife knows that he does not render it on account of the confession heard? That case is chimerical. If it should happen, the confessor would have to ask the faculty of conversing with her, if she should recover, and of rescinding the feigned marriage. What if she should refuse? She would not be to be absolved, as being indisposed, because prepared to live in concubinage. What if she should recover without absolution? These hypotheses are arbitrary figments. If the hypothesis should occur, recourse would have to be had to God, who never permits an innocent man to be tempted above that which he can. But I repeat that the case is chimerical.

XI. QUESTION VI. How ought a confessor to bear himself when he is questioned concerning things heard in confession? ANSWER. If a confessor be absolutely questioned, he can absolutely answer that he does not know, even with an oath added, because he is presumed not to be questioned as a confessor. What if a crafty questioner should ask whether he would lay open those things which he knows as a confessor? The confessor ought undauntedly to answer, and to reject the questioning as unworthy and the questioner as an iniquitous man. Very many other cases upon this seal are wont to be discussed; but because they are obvious and of no difficulty, I pass them over. A confessor with a severe and prudent custody of the tongue will resolve them all.

XII. QUESTION VII. Who are bound to this seal? ANSWER. Not only confessors, whether lawful or feigned, are bound, but also all interpreters whose help penitents use, that they may manifest their sins to a priest. Assistants also are subject to this seal, when without their presence the confession cannot be made, as it happens in a common shipwreck, in which those who hear, or by chance or by industry touch, the sin of those confessing sacramentally, are bound to preserve this seal; as also counsellors, to whom out of necessity the person of the penitent and the crime is manifested; and likewise superiors from whom the faculty for reserved cases is sought.

Titius, the confessor of pupils in a certain Catholic college, when he learned from confession that a certain boy imbued with evil morals was drawing others into grave sins, warned their Prefect to watch more diligently over the flock committed to him. The Prefect, however, who was also a priest and not altogether a stranger to moral theology, doubted whether it was lawful for him to use the information given. Hence it is asked:

1. To what does the secrecy of the seal oblige, and by what law is it established?

2. Is it lawful to use knowledge obtained from confession?

3. Is it lawful for superiors to use the said knowledge in external government?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. To what does the secret of the seal bind and by what law?

By divine, natural, and positive law the confessor is bound to say or do nothing which could make known any sin, or circumstance connected with sin, confessed to him, or which would cause the penitent reasonable displeasure, or make confession more burdensome than it is.¹

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

2. Is it allowed to make use of knowledge gained from confession?

Of course, such knowledge must not be so used as to violate the seal. Otherwise the confessor may use knowledge gained from confession to correct his own faults, to preach and to hear confessions with more fruit, to treat his penitents and others with greater kindness, i

3. May Superiors use knowledge gained from confession for the government of their subjects?

No, this may not be done, as it would make confession odious, and cause displeasure to penitents. The contrary opinion was virtually condemned by a decree of Clement VIII, May 26, 1593, and another of the Holy Office, Nov. 18, 1682, and it is now obsolete.²

2 Ibid., 232.

4. The case. Titius, of course, was not justified in doing what he did if any suspicion was likely to fall on the culprit in consequence of what he said. If what he said to the prefect would betray neither the delinquent nor anything that had been told him in confession, it would seem that Titius was not to blame, and that the prefect may follow his admonition without scruple. St. Alphonsus says: “ Commonly, however, they admit that a confessor may use knowledge from confession to render himself more cautious in a household matter, to shake off sloth, and to watch more diligently over his flock, provided that no suspicion of sin is given to others and that the penitent is neither burdened by this nor implicitly reproved... from D. Thomas in IV, d. XXI, q. 3, a. 1, q. 3 ad 1, where he says: ' The confessor may say to the prelate that he should watch more diligently over his flock, however, so that he does not say anything by which the penitent may be betrayed by word or gesture.' ”³

3 St. Alphonsus, Theol. Moral., lib. vi, 657.

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 232.

Caius and Tullia, betrothed for some months, went together to confess to Titius, a priest, who sat in a wooden confessional exposed in the church, Caius on this side and Tullia on that. Caius began first and accused himself, among other things, of fornication committed several times with various women. Not only Titius but also Tullia heard the whole confession of Caius, since the opening had been left uncovered on each side of the confessional. After absolution was given to Caius, Titius turned to Tullia, who first explained that she had indeed been betrothed to Caius, but after what she had heard she in no way wished to marry him; indeed, she asserted that she had conceived hatred against him. Hence it is asked:

1. What just causes are admitted for withdrawing from betrothal?

2. To what extent and by what law is the use of knowledge acquired from sacramental confession prohibited?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. What just causes for breaking off an engagement to marry may be admitted?

An engagement to marry may be broken off by mutual consent, by the happening of an event which would have prevented the engagement if it had happened before it, by entering into a Religious Order or by taking sacred Orders, and by the Pope for good reason.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 260 f.

2. This question was answered above, p. 222.

3. The case. Tullia of course did wrong in listening to the confession of her betrothed. She should have gone out of the confessional or called the attention of the priest to the fact that the grating was not closed. Having heard the confession, she is per se bound like the confessor not to allow the knowledge which she has gained to influence her conduct. She probably does not know this, and certainly she does not seem able to control her feelings. Women were never intended to be confessors. Caius will hear immediately of what has happened, and he will probably be content to release Tullia from her engagement, as under the circumstances the marriage could hardly turn out well.

i / l

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

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

2. How is the secrecy of the seal violated?

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

4. What must Titius answer?

The first question was answered above, p. 222.

2. How is the seal of confession violated?

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

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

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

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

2 Ibid., 229.

4. What should Titius answer?

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

Caius and Paul, priests, serve the same mission. A certain penitent who until now has confessed to Paul comes to confess to Caius. Caius feels rather serious difficulties concerning the said penitent’s confessions and the proper manner of treating him. Since, however, Caius cannot converse with Paul outside confession about the penitent’s case because of the sacramental seal, in confession, after confessing his own sins, he discloses to Paul his difficulties concerning the said case and asks Paul’s advice. Hence it is asked:

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

2. In what ways can it be violated?

3. What kind of sin is a violation of the seal?

4. Is it ever lawful to use knowledge obtained from confession?

5. What is to be said of the case?

The first question is answered above, p. 222, the second, p. 226, the third, p. 227, the fourth, p. 223.

Titus, a priest, has for some time, been hearing the monthly confessions of certain boys. Recently the boy J. came to Confession and confessed among other things, that he had been “mad at a boy.” No names are mentioned, but the priest happens to know the boy J., who is confessing, and thinks he knows also the one at whom J., as he says, is “‘mad,” and whose name is H. After questioning to satisfy himself that J. entertains no further ill-will against the other boy, the priest absolves and dismisses the penitent. Subsequently he notices that the two boys J. and H. are no longer seen together, though they had in the past associated a great deal. Titus, in an occasional talk with H., whom he thinks to be the boy referred to by J. in Confession, asks H. if he and J. were not on good terms, and H. admits they were not. Titus brought up this matter in order to bring about a reconciliation between the two boys, one of whom, J., had in Confession expressed his consent to be reconciled.

Did Titus act properly in asking this other boy H. about the matter? e. g., if he and J. were on good terms? Would the two boys concerned be likely to think that the priest made use of knowledge which he had obtained in the confessional?

Answer. There are two decrees of the Holy See extant, regarding the use of knowledge gained in the confessional. The first is a decree of Clement VIII, May 26, 1593, in which superiors of religious orders are forbidden to make use of any knowledge gained in the confessional, for the external government of the order. DeLugo and St. Alphonsus, both maintain that this decree is to be extended to all superiors, even though they belong to the secular clergy, in relation to all classes of penitents, because the decree does not contain merely a particular regulation for some individuals, but it promulgates a divine law concerning the seal of Confession. And for this reason, they say, that the doctrine of the earlier theologians, that knowledge gained from Confession might be made use of, provided there was no danger of revealing the sins of the penitent, that is, provided others would not suspect anything about the penitent, must be corrected. The other decree is a decree of the Holy Office, November 18, 1682, by which it is forbidden to make use of information gained in the confessional, to the detriment of the penitent, even though by so doing the penitent might be saved from some greater evil or suffering, and especially from some greater sin. This decree necessitates the amendment of the principle, held also by the earlier theologians, that information gathered in the confessional might be made use of, provided the penitent could not be rationabiliter invitus, that is to say, when the use of such information is necessary to reclaim the penitent from sin.

St. Alphonsus admonishes all confessors to be exceedingly careful in the matter of the seal of Confession, since there is always more or less danger of either revealing the sins of the penitent or else creating hardships for him. We will give a brief synopsis of the teaching of the holy Doctor in regard to the seal of Confession. He says that it is never allowed to make use of any information gained from the Confession of a penitent, if

1. There be danger of revealing a penitent’s sins;

2. Thereby a hardship be created for the penitent, or the penitent be led thereby to dislike or detest Confession;

3. Others suspect that the seal of Confession is being violated, or in other words, if others are scandalized.

1. Even though some greater evil or sin might be obviated for the penitent, by the use of information gained from the penitent’s Confession, it is never allowed to use it. Not even if the penitent did not know that the confessor was acting on information gathered from his Confession. The reason why such knowledge may not be used, even when the penitent is quite ignorant that it is being used, is that the faithful would be turned away from the practice of Confession, if they thought that the confessor might use the information gathered from their Confessions.

Therefore, if the confessor knows from the penitent’s Confession, that the penitent is making bad Confessions, or is indisposed, he may not, for that reason, refuse to hear his Confession. For such conduct on the part of the confessor would be a violation of the seal and would render Confession odious.

It is never allowed to question the confessor of children concerning their conduct, nor is it permitted to consult a confessor regarding young men who are to receive holy orders. The only information that a confessor may volunteer under such circumstances is that such penitents frequent the Sacraments.

2. It is lawful to use information gathered in the confessional, provided such use does not result in hardship to the penitent and there be no fear of any revelation. For if there be no fear either of revelation or of hardship for the penitent, the Sacrament will not be made odious, even though the penitent should notice that some use was being made of what he had told in Confession, because if the use being made of knowledge gained in Confession is in no wise detrimental or burdensome to the penitent then such use does not make Confession more difficult or distasteful.

Therefore a confessor may make use of what he knows from Confession for the reformation of his own life, for the better fulfillment of his office or duties as a confessor, to pray to God for his penitents, to treat them with more kindliness, even though the penitent might notice that this was being done because of what he told in his Confession; since the Sacrament is not thus made hateful; the confessor may also use knowledge that he has from Confession, to consult works on theology and the spiritual life; to temper his dealings with penitents in the confessional; to save himself from the pitfalls that his penitents have encountered; to admonish others, etc. In sermons it is allowed to speak in a general way of things, that a preacher would not think of unless he heard Confessions, but he must have a care not to speak of any particular sins of individual penitents.

3. A confessor may do anything that he ought to do, or would have done, even if he had not heard Confessions; even though it was the Confessions that put it into his mind to do it now; provided he take care to admonish the penitent, lest he be scandalized. But it is not lawful for a confessor to do anything on account of something he hears in Confession, which otherwise he would not have done, if from his doing so, a hardship might be created for the penitent, or there be fear or danger that something be revealed. The confessor is obliged in conscience to wait until some future event or occurrence furnish him an excuse or motive for doing what would otherwise not be done.

In answer to the question now, it is evident from what has been said above, that the priest had no right to ask the question which he put to H. Even though his purpose was to remove an occasion and cause of sin between the two boys, still his knowledge was gathered exclusively from the Confession of one of the boys, and its use, under the circumstances, would create suspicion that he was breaking the seal of Confession, and make Confession distasteful and even odious. Even though the priest might have had J.’s permission to speak of the matter to the other boy, he would first have to explain the circumstance of the permission to H. in order to remove any scandal that H. might take by thinking that the priest was violating the seal of J.’s Confession, in speaking to him about a reconciliation. The priest should have waited until he learned, by some means independent of the confessional, that J. and H. were estranged, and then, letting the boys know clearly whence he had his knowledge, might have tried to reconcile them.

A hospital chaplain asks advice in the following circumstances: Many concubinarii are brought to our hospital, who, according to an excellent custom, are invited to make their confession and often do so. If they are seriously ill, we do our utmost to arouse in them true contrition and purpose of amendment. But sometimes they are not very ill, and the confessor learns only in the course of their confession that they are concubinarii; if they refuse altogether to abandon their sinful life, and will not even promise to avoid immorality, then he cannot of course give them absolution. In this case, how can he avoid breaking the seal of the confessional? Above the head of each patient hangs a card, so that the priest may see who has been recently admitted and whose confession he has to hear. If the patient makes his confession, the card remains hanging, to show who is to receive Holy Communion the next morning; it is removed after Communion has been given. If the patient makes no confession, the priest takes down the card. In the case that has been suggested, the nurse and all the other patients in the ward know that the priest has heard the sick man's confession. If he cannot give him absolution, and takes down the card, he betrays, out of confession, that the penitent has not been absolved; is this not a fractio sigilli? Is it correct to think that the patient has only himself to blame if he is not absolved, and this is betrayed by or inferred from the priest's behavior? Or is it correct to regard the confession as no real confession at all, because the penitent was not in the proper disposition and did not fulfil the required conditions?

If the priest tells the penitent that he cannot absolve him, but, in order not to break the seal of the confessional, he will give him his blessing and trust him to find some pretext for not receiving Holy Communion, he may be sure that the man will nevertheless communicate, and add sacrilege to his other sins.

Is the following a correct course of action? I tell the sick man that I cannot give him absolution, but he must pray to the Holy Ghost for light and make a better preparation; that I mean to stop his confession, remove the card, and tell the nurse, if she asks whether he is to receive Holy Communion, that he is going to make more preparation. Then I stand up, and do as I have said. Is there any fractio sigilli in this case? If so, how ought I to act?

The whole question turns on the seal of the confessional, which originates in sacramental confession, i. e., in a confession made with a view to receiving sacramental absolution (in ordine ad sacramentalem absolutionem). A sacramental confession is not (1) a purely historical account of sins, such as any one might give in a confidential conversation with a priest, without any reference to the Sacrament of penance. Nor is it (2) a confession made with the intention of asking advice, with no desire to receive the Sacrament, although a priest would be bound to keep a secretum naturale. Nor is (3) a sacramental confession one made to deceive or mislead a confessor, or to obtain some advantage, or to comply with the orders of a superior, as if the penitent were to say: " I have not come to confess my sins, but because I want to have a certificate of confession to show my wife."

In such a case there is no seal of the confessional, nor need the priest give the man any certificate; yet, as a rule, he is bound to do nothing that would put him to shame, nor to seem in any way to have broken the seal of the confessional; for, by refusing a certificate, he might lead the people present to imagine that he did so because he could not give the man absolution.

A confession invalidated by some defect, by want of proper dispositions or by sacrilegious omission of some sin on the part of the penitent, or by absence of intention or jurisdiction on that of the confessor, is nevertheless sacramental. It is only when the penitent knowingly makes his confession to a layman, or to a priest not possessing proper faculties, that the confession becomes a matter merely of a secretum naturale, unless the penitent made his confession to a priest in order that the latter might obtain the necessary faculties and then give him absolution. Anything that, if made known, could bring odium upon the Sacrament or trouble the penitent, falls under the seal of the confessional.

The Lateran Council, IV. c. 21, says: "But let the confessor take absolute care that he does not in any way betray the sinner by word, sign, or any other means whatsoever." We must distinguish between a direct and an indirect violation of the seal of the confessional. A direct violation would take place if a priest expressly revealed anything learnt from the penitent under the seal of the confessional; an indirect, if he spoke in such a way as to lead others to think his knowledge was derived from the confessional, or if he suffered knowledge thus derived to influence his external behavior. Nothing but the penitent's express permission can release a priest from the seal of the confessional, and this permission avails only if it is given quite voluntarily and is not extorted by feelings of respect (reverentia).

If these principles be applied to the case under discussion, we must bear in mind the fact that the confession is sacramental, even if the penitent cannot be absolved, because of his want of contrition and purpose of amendment. Even if the patient goes to confession only because it is part of the regular routine of the hospital, his confession is sacramental, unless he tells the priest plainly that he has no intention of making a real confession, but is pretending to do so, for the sake of appearances. The propounder of the question has not told us how the penitent received the confessor's proposal, and whether he agreed to it or not. If he did not expressly agree to it, there was an indirect violation of the seal of the confessional, because the priest, in taking down the card, allowed his outward behavior to be influenced by knowledge obtained from the man's confession. The nurse and the other patients would be very likely to think that the penitent had not received absolution, because he had not the proper disposition.

The suggestion that the penitent has only himself to blame if, owing to his bad disposition, he is not absolved, and this becomes known through the priest's actions, is inadmissible, since a confessor may not allow his outward behavior to be influenced by information obtained in a confession. If the penitent refuses, or does not expressly give, permission to the priest to remove the card, and to make the remark proposed to the nurse, the confessor can do nothing but forbid him to receive Holy Communion because he has not been absolved. The patient can then tell the nurse or the priest (not in confession) that he does not intend to communicate, or he may purposely take some food, so as to make it impossible for him to do so. If, however, he will not consent to do anything of the kind, in spite of the priest's persuasion, there is no help for it but for the priest to leave him to his fate and to give him Holy Communion on the following day.

If the penitent agrees to what the priest proposes and does so quite voluntarily (this is a very important point), there is no violation of the seal of the confessional in the priest's action, but the nurse and other patients might very easily suspect one, since he alone takes action and gives the explanation of it. In this way odium would be brought upon the Sacrament, and on this account this line of conduct seems inadmissible in the case in question. The priest can do nothing, therefore, but ask the patient to refuse Communion, and to declare immediately after his confession that he is not going to communicate the next morning. He must not, however, after the confession is finished, ask the sick man whether he intends to communicate, in order by means of this question to elicit the desired declaration, for this would involve a violation of the seal of the confessional; unless indeed the patient agrees to his asking the question so as to have an opportunity of making the declaration. If the patient himself says that he is not going to receive Communion, there is less reason to fear arousing suspicio fracti sigilli. If the confessor is in the habit of asking the hospital patients whether they wish to receive Communion, he may put the question out of confession, and as the chaplain who raised the discussion is liable often to encounter difficulties such as he has described, I should advise him henceforth to ask every patient after, and not during his confession, some question regarding his Communion.—Dr. A. Goepfert.

Case.—Francis and Anna, about to be married, made their confessions on the morning of their wedding-day. Among other things the bride accuses herself of a grievous sin contra sextum, committed the previous day with the bridegroom. Right after the bride, Francis comes to confess, but makes not the least mention of the sin committed with Anna. The confessor, therefore, asked general questions in reference to the Sixth Commandment, but failed to elicit the least acknowledgment from Francis. Since he must presume that the groom confesses sacrilegiously he does not absolve him, but with a prayer gives him the blessing which the groom supposes to be the absolution.

Question.—What is to be said of the confessor’s action?

Solution.—This is a case by no means rare in practice. Concerning its solution, however, the opinions even of the greatest moralists differ. St. Thomas (opusc. 7 al. 12. qu. 6.) propounds the general principle: “In confession, the sinner who confesses is to be believed both for himself and against himself; but against another he is in no way to be believed, otherwise an opportunity for feigned confession and fraudulent defamation would be given to many.” According to this the confessor is in general to form his judgment about the penitent according to the accusation of the penitent himself (confitenti et pro se et contra se), not according to the statement of another, who possibly with deceiving or calumnious intention (ficta confessio et fraudulenta infamatio), mentions in his accusation the sins of another. The certainty that the confessor gains from the deposition of the penitent, is as a usual thing certainly greater than that which he obtains through the confession of another, as St. Thomas expressly sets forth (4. dist. 17 Qu. 3. art. 3 q. 5. ad. 2.): “With respect to this knowledge—that is, through disclosure in confession—the priest cannot receive greater certainty than by believing his subject, because this is for the assistance of that person’s conscience; hence in the tribunal of confession a person is believed both for himself and against himself.” Suarez is of the same opinion (de poenit. d. 32. s. 3. n. 9.): “However much the confessor may know the penitent’s sin from the report of others, in this judgment he is bound to believe the penitent himself more, for the reason already given.”

Therefore, if the penitent is silent about a sin of which the confessor has learned from another, then the confessor ought to assume that the penitent either has forgotten the sin, or has already confessed it to someone else, or has a lawful reason for keeping silent, or that after all the other person had erred. The confessor may refuse credence only when he has indubitable evidence of the sin which the penitent does not reveal, when, for instance, he has seen it with his own eyes; in this case says Suarez (l. c.), “he is not bound to abide by the penitent’s statements in such a way that he cannot use his own knowledge to convict and reprove the penitent himself.”

These principles apply in the case that the confessor extra confessionem has learned of the penitent’s sin, as also in the case that he knows it ex confessione alterius, as St. Thomas plainly indicates in his first quoted sentence (opusc. 7. al. 12. qu. 6.).

But the circumstances may be, as in the present case, of such kind that the confessor knows from the confession of another the sins of a penitent with evident certainty, because it could not possibly be supposed that the first penitent would calumniate the second, nor that she erred, because she had taken part in the sin. Now the question is, can the confessor make use of this knowledge, gained from the confession of another, as the rule for his conduct towards the penitent? We do not mean a use producing an obvious violation of the seal of confession, i. e., by direct reference to the accusation of another, or through pointed questions, from which the penitent may easily become suspicious that another revealed his sin. It is to be considered, however, whether it would not be allowable in order to prevent an invalid absolution on part of the confessor, to leave the penitent in good faith about receiving absolution, and either not to absolve him at all, saying a prayer instead of the absolution, or to absolve him sub conditione. On the one hand the confessor is confronted by the duty not to violate the sigillum, and to consider the knowledge gained as not available for his procedure, on the other hand it seems that the avoidance of a cooperatio ad confessionem sacrilegam is reason sufficient sine ullo gravamine poenitentis not to grant absolution or to grant it sub conditione. This is still a mooted question. St. Alphonsus enumerates the opinions of various authors and sides with Lacroix in these words: “In my judgment Lacroix thinks better: in that case he should by no means absolve, but should merely recite some prayer in order to conceal the denial of absolution.” Amongst the modern Moralists this view is also held by E. Müller, who however counsels conditional absolution when it is not certain that the penitent’s confession is sacrilegious. Göpfert holds in principle that the penitent in this case is not to be absolved: “When the confessor knows the sin only from the confession of another, particularly of the participant in the sin, then without the other’s special permission he ought not to inquire in particular about this sin, but should put only general questions that do not endanger a revelation of the other’s confession. If it is quite evident that the penitent has sacrilegiously concealed the sin, he ought not to be absolved, but should receive the blessing, without telling him about it.” When, however, such plain evidence is not practically obtainable, as is generally the case, absolution is to be given: “And since this evidence cannot be established through the confession of another exclusively, the penitent is as a rule to be absolved, absolutely, if there is no reason to doubt his sincerity, otherwise conditionally.” Noldin (De Sacram. n. 402) leaves the question open: “But if he does not confess the matter and it is plainly established that the penitent is concealing a sin committed, it is lawful to omit absolution and to recite some prayers in order to conceal its omission; but it is also lawful to absolve the penitent either absolutely or conditionally.” Gury takes a somewhat different attitude in solving a similar case. The penitent not only might, but must—saltem probabilius—be absolved. The following reasons are presented: “1. A confessor cannot use knowledge obtained from confession to deny the sacrament to any penitent. 2. Even granting at least the probability of the other opinion, it is not lawful to use a probable opinion in a matter concerning the sacramental seal.” Gury allows only a conditional absolution, for reasons of respect for the Sacrament; and, on the other hand, on account of the seal of confession and the penitent’s possible good faith, he does not permit a denial of absolution. Bucceroni, giving as his authority St. Thomas, as above quoted, is in favor of giving absolution as a general rule.

As in this important question the authors take no very decided position, it is to be recommended to absolve the penitent sub conditione, for while, on the one hand, there is good reason to doubt his sincerity, there is, on the other hand, the general principle: credendum poenitenti pro se et contra se. There is no violation of the seal of confession, because there is no revelatio peccati and no gravamen poenitentis. There is, however, also sufficient probability in the opposing opinion that one may refuse absolution, unknown to the penitent, the penitent being dismissed with the confessor’s blessing; a mala fides would at any rate make the absolution invalid.

One who comes to the knowledge of anything concerning another which is not public and which cannot be made known without doing him an injury or causing him reasonable displeasure is bound to keep the matter secret. If he does not keep it secret he commits a sin by violating justice and charity. For justice and charity bind us to do nothing to the hurt or reasonable displeasure of our neighbour. After becoming aware of the secret a person may promise him whose secret it is not to reveal it. He will then be bound to keep the matter secret by the additional obligation of a promise. Sometimes people consult others about their secret affairs in order to obtain their advice and help. In such cases, whether an express stipulation to observe secrecy is made or not, the person consulted is bound by the strictest natural secret not to betray the trust placed in him.

When a penitent goes to confession and makes known his sins to the priest he is driven thereto by divine command and by his desire to receive absolution. He makes known his sins as an act of religion, and his self-manifestation is protected by the virtue of religion. The improper use of knowledge of matter connected with confession is the violation of a secret of a special character; it is a sin of sacrilege. Priests, then, and all others who in any way come to the knowledge of what has been confessed in the Sacrament of Penance, are by the very nature of things bound by a religious obligation to keep the matter secret. This is the strictest of all secrets, and it is called the seal of confession.

For centuries no positive law of the Church was required to oblige the faithful either to go to Holy Communion or to go to confession when it was necessary. Custom and the desire to receive the Sacraments was sufficient in general to keep them to their duty. The Fourth Council of the Lateran, held in 1215, made a law which obliged all who had come to years of discretion to go to confession and to receive Holy Communion at least once a year, and that at Easter or thereabouts. To this law the Council added these words: “Moreover, let the confessor take care in no wise to betray the sinner, either by word, or sign, or in any other way, but if he needs more prudent advice let him ask it with caution, without any manifestation of the person concerned, since we decree that one who presumes to reveal a sin made known to him in the tribunal of penance, is not only to be deposed from the priestly office, but is also to be placed in a strict monastery, there to do perpetual penance.” The law was not new, but the penalty for violating the law was a new one. It was intended to reassure the penitent and to help him to make a full confession to his priest without any fear of an improper use being made of his confession.

The new Code of Canon Law has made the law more explicit and has changed somewhat the penalty for its violation. According to Canon 889: “The sacramental seal is inviolable, wherefore let the confessor take diligent care lest by word, or sign, or in any other way, he betray the sinner in any wise for any reason whatever. An interpreter also and all others to whom knowledge derived from confession may come in any way are bound by the obligation of keeping the sacramental seal.” The new penalties for violating the seal of confession are enacted in Canon 2369:

“Excommunication most specially reserved to the Holy See awaits the confessor who presumes to violate directly the sacramental seal. One who does this only indirectly is liable to suspension from saying Mass, hearing confessions,” and other penalties.

We have seen before what is implied by excommunication most specially reserved to the Holy See. In order to incur this excommunication by the very fact a confessor must act presumptuously, that is, with full consciousness of what he is doing and with full knowledge of the censure incurred. This censure is inflicted for direct violation of the seal. Direct is distinguished from indirect violation. A confessor violates the seal directly if he makes known the penitent who has told him something connected with confession which he also makes known. If he makes known something which is protected by the seal of confession and indicates something which may lead to the betrayal of the penitent, he is guilty of indirect violation of the seal. One who is only guilty of indirect violation of the seal does not incur excommunication or any penalty by the very fact. But one who has been convicted of the crime should be suspended from saying Mass and from hearing confessions, or also, according to the gravity of the offence, be declared incapable of hearing them; he should be deprived of all benefices, dignities, of active and passive voice, and he should be declared incapable of such privileges, and in more serious cases he should be degraded.

Only confessors incur these severe penalties for the crime of direct or indirect violation of the seal of confession. But interpreters may have been made use of in order to make a full confession. Theologians may be consulted about some difficult case. Superiors are asked for special faculties in order that absolution may be given for some reserved case. Sometimes a person who was near the confessional when a penitent was confessing his sins may have overheard something that was said. All these are also bound to secrecy by the sacramental seal, and anybody else who in any way becomes possessed of knowledge protected by the seal of confession. If any such person violates the obligation under which he lies, he is not subject to the severe penalties inflicted on confessors who may have been guilty of the same crime. But Canon 2369 prescribes that he should be punished by the infliction of salutary penalties, which may be excommunication, according to the gravity of the offence.