Violation of Secret

666. Preliminary notions. 1. A secret subjectively is the obligation of not manifesting some hidden matter; objectively it is the hidden matter itself and the matter to be kept hidden. A threefold secret is distinguished (besides the sacramental secret):

a. Natural, whose obligation arises without contract from the nature of the thing alone, namely because the matter which someone has known by chance cannot be manifested without another being reasonably unwilling.

b. Merely promised, whose obligation arises from a promise, if someone promises silence to another about a matter already known before.

This promise can be given in two diverse circumstances: for either one promises another secrecy concerning a matter which he already knew before, or he afterwards promises secrecy concerning a matter which he had received from another without secrecy.

c. Committed or strict, whose obligation likewise arises from a promise, if someone receives from another a matter previously unknown to himself under the condition and express or tacit promise of keeping secrecy.

a. Therefore one committed secret arises from a promise or explicit pact, and can be called a private committed secret; another arises from a promise or tacit pact, and can be called an official (committed) secret (Amtsgeheimnis). The observance of the former is demanded only by private good; the observance of the latter is demanded in some measure also by the common good.

b. By the obligation of official secrecy are held counselors, physicians, midwives, advocates, theologians, etc., to whom, by force of office or for the sake of seeking counsel or help, secrets are revealed. Some refer here also friends and relatives to whom, by right of friendship and kinship, secrets are manifested for the sake of help or consolation.

Note. A secret can be an invention of art or science; it can be some fact (for example, that an office is vacant); it can be a hidden crime. The same principles do not apply to every secret.

2. Anyone has a right to his own secret; hence of itself it is not lawful: a. to investigate a secret; b. to manifest a secret; c. to use secret knowledge.

a. It is not lawful to investigate a secret unjustly, because a secret is like another's property; therefore he who unjustly investigates a secret takes another's property away from its owner.

a. A secret which is an invention of art or science may not be investigated by unjust or dishonorable means (by listening secretly, opening letters, employing force or deceit), but it may be investigated by natural and honorable means (art, study): for the owner cannot reasonably be unwilling that each one strive to know these secrets by licit means. The same must be said of a secret which is some fact. b. A secret which is a hidden crime, either already committed or to be committed later, may be investigated when there is question of averting truly grave damage to oneself or to an innocent third person, which threatens from that very person whose secret it is.

b. It is not lawful to manifest a secret, because manifestation is against justice or at least against charity, unless there is question of a case in which use of the secret is lawful.

c. It is not lawful to use a secret, or secret knowledge unjustly acquired: for he who has inflicted an injury on another is bound to remove it, or at least not to continue it; but he who uses knowledge unjustly acquired to the damage of another continues the injury inflicted on another. It is lawful to use secret knowledge justly acquired for one's own or another's advantage, even if some damage to another follows from it: for when someone has justly acquired knowledge of a secret, whether there is question of a fact or of an invention of art or science, the right of secrecy ceases, because the secret itself ceases.¹ Nevertheless it is not lawful to use a committed secret for one's own or another's advantage against the will of the one committing it: for a secret is judged to be committed in such a way that he to whom it is committed must abstain not only from its manifestation but also from its use.²

¹ Cf. Lugo, l.c., disp. 14, n. 103; St. Alphonsus, l. 3, n. 969; Sporer-Bierbaum II, tract. 5, n. 674; Ballerini-Palmieri II, n. 1083.

² Cf. Elbel-Bierbaum I, pr. 4, n. 412 s.; Bucceroni, Casus consc., 2nd ed., n. 88, 5. Let the examples be: a. From another's opened letters someone knows that some office is vacant; using this knowledge he himself seeks and receives it earlier. b. By chance, hearing persons speaking in a loud voice, he knows an invention of art whose secret they were diligently guarding; he himself uses this knowledge for his own advantage. c. An advocate, knowing by reason of office the unstable state of someone's business, warns his brother, a creditor of that business, about this matter, so that he may provide for himself in time.

667. On natural secret. 1. A natural secret obliges either from justice or from charity, and therefore under grave obligation in a grave matter, namely where the neighbor, from its revelation, is affected either by grave sadness or by grave injury.

2. It is lawful to manifest a natural secret where it cannot be kept without grave inconvenience; this inconvenience indeed must be greater if the secret obliges from justice.

To reveal one or another secret of lesser moment does not exceed venial sin. In a (positive) doubt whether the secret is of slight or great moment, it cannot be revealed without grave sin, because the one revealing exposes himself to the danger not only of sinning gravely but also at the same time of causing grave damage; therefore the principle of probabilism cannot be applied in this case.

668. On a promised secret. 1. A promised secret as such obliges either from mere fidelity under light obligation, or from justice, and indeed in a grave matter even under grave obligation, according as the one promising intends to bind himself either from fidelity or from justice; ordinarily, however, it obliges only from fidelity.

a. The matter of a promised and committed secret is sometimes that which by its own nature must be kept hidden, and therefore imposes a double obligation, of natural secret and of promise.

b. It must be noted that a promise of keeping secrecy is sometimes made from mere propriety and civility; this promise indeed of itself induces no obligation.

2. A promised secret does not oblige: a. where it cannot be kept without grave inconvenience to oneself or another, unless someone expressly obligated himself otherwise; b. when the matter would have had to be manifested without the promise: for no one can obligate himself by a promise to that which is illicit.

Therefore he who is legitimately questioned by a judge or superior concerning some matter must manifest it, even if he had promised secrecy.

669. On a committed secret. A committed secret obliges from justice and therefore under grave obligation in grave matter, because this obligation arises from a promise burdensome on both sides. Moreover, the common good demands that the opportunity of seeking necessary counsel or help be available to all; but men would be deprived of this advantage unless, because of the grave obligation of this secret, they were certain concerning its observance.

a. The obligation of a committed secret is stricter and graver than that of a promised secret, and the obligation of an official secret is graver than the obligation of a privately committed secret. For a committed secret obliges from justice, but a promised secret ordinarily only from fidelity; an official committed secret, however, obliges even when otherwise the matter would have had to be manifested, because the common good demands that this secret be kept unharmed except in a few cases. Therefore a committed secret may not be opened even to a judge or superior legitimately questioning, and the one questioned must answer with restriction that he knows nothing, namely nothing which he can reveal.¹

b. Not all committed secrets are of the same strictness and obligation, but some urge more strictly than others; this must be attended to when there is question of the licit revelation of a committed secret. Thus the obligation of a secret which is committed entirely freely, without another cause, to a private man is less; the obligation of a secret which is committed to a private man for the sake of receiving counsel is greater; the obligation of a secret which is committed to men constituted in public office (physicians, advocates, etc.) is still greater; finally the obligation of a secret which is committed to counselors in public causes is the greatest (if we abstract from the sacrament).²

c. To reveal even a committed secret of greater moment to one or another prudent man under secrecy is a venial sin, provided no other grave damage follows from it, and the secret is not manifested to him from whom the one committing it especially wished it to be hidden: for a matter communicated to one person only can still be called secret; hence by this lesion of secrecy only a light injury is inflicted on another.

¹ By civil law it is for the most part prohibited that those who perform a public office, as pastors, physicians, etc., be questioned by magistrates or judges concerning those things which have been entrusted to them by reason of office. Yet in some places this is enjoined by civil law on all, even physicians who were present at childbirth, that they report the name of the father and mother to the magistrate. Where a law of this kind is in force, since it must be said to be just (so that children may know their parents), it must also be observed by physicians: for in this case the obligation of committed or official secrecy ceases for them.

² Cf. Lehmkuhl I, n. 1198.

670. A committed secret can licitly be revealed in the following four cases.

It is evident of itself that the obligation of secrecy ceases: a. if the consent of him who committed the secret can rightly and deservedly be presumed. If a subject (the example is Cardinal de Lugo's) manifests under secrecy to a superior the crime of some subject, it must be supposed that the informer indeed wishes to remain hidden, but it can also be supposed that he permits the superior to do concerning the delinquent what he judges opportune.¹ b. If the matter is already known or divulged from elsewhere; hence anyone can licitly speak of a committed secret with a man who has knowledge of it, even if this knowledge is not yet public. The same holds if he to whom the secret was committed received knowledge of the matter from elsewhere. Therefore the secret can be revealed:

1. If it is necessary for averting grave common damage to the Church or the republic: for the obligation of secrecy, which was introduced for the sake of the public good, ceases where the same public good demands the manifestation of the secret. But it is not lawful to reveal a secret because of light public damage, such as arises, for example, from the guilty man remaining unpunished.

If someone knows under secrecy another's purpose of harming the city, and the latter cannot otherwise be turned back from executing it, he can and must reveal the secret committed to him.

2. If it is necessary for averting grave damage unjustly to be inflicted on an innocent third person by him who committed the secret: for charity demands that we free the innocent from the injury of the harmful man even with some damage to the harmful man.

a. If Titius knows under secrecy another's purpose of killing Gaius, and the wicked man cannot be turned back from his purpose, Titius can and must manifest it as much as is necessary to avert the evil, for example by warning Gaius to take care for himself. Likewise a physician knowing that a bridegroom, who pretends himself healthy, is laboring under a contagious disease, could manifest the matter to the deceived bride, if the bridegroom, after warning, was unwilling to desist.

b. Note that the obligation of a committed secret does not cease in favor of the innocent unless the secret concerns an evil still to be inflicted by injury; for if the secret concerns an evil already committed, its obligation does not cease, even if by manifestation the damage of the innocent person could be averted. If, for example, someone knew from a committed secret that Titius is a homicide, he could not reveal the matter in order to free Sempronius, who is unjustly condemned to death in place of Titius. For just as Titius himself is not bound, with equal damage to himself, to manifest his own crime in order to free Sempronius from an evil of which he is not the cause except accidentally, so he to whom Titius committed the secret is not bound, indeed he cannot manifest the crime of Titius in order to free Sempronius. For Titius is reasonably unwilling concerning the revelation of a secret committed by himself, so long as he himself can licitly keep it.²

3. If it is necessary for averting grave damage to the one committing the secret himself: for the one committing cannot be reasonably unwilling concerning the manifestation of the secret.

If someone knows under secrecy that Gaius has resolved to enter marriage with a hidden impediment, and he cannot otherwise be impeded from entering marriage, he can and must denounce the impediment.

4. If it is necessary for averting grave damage to oneself, even if from this there would follow for the one committing the secret danger of death: for one accepting a secret is not judged to wish to bind himself with so great an inconvenience, unless he expressly promises that he will keep the secret even with the gravest inconvenience.

If someone knew under secrecy that homicide had been perpetrated by another, and he himself, to whom the secret was committed, being suspected of the homicide, was in danger of undergoing a grave penalty, he would licitly reveal the secret even with danger of death to the one committing it, supposing that there is not another means of averting the most grave penalty threatening.

¹ Lugo, disp. 14, n. 117.

² Cf. Laymann, l. 3, tr. 3, pr. 2, c. 5, n. 2.

Definition of a Secret.—A secret is a matter (e.g., an invention, valuable information, concealed virtues, the fact that a crime has been committed) known privately by only one person or by so few that it is neither public property nor notorious. Moralists distinguish the following kinds of secrets:

(a) a natural secret, which is one that cannot be revealed without causing injury or annoyance to another, as when the revelation will harm a person in his reputation, honor, influence property. It is called natural for it arises from the very nature of the matter of the secret and not from any promise or contract.

(b) a promised secret, which is one that a person has promised, but only after he had already learned it, to guard inviolate. It makes no difference whether the promisor learned the secret from the promisee or from some other source;

(c) an entrusted or committed secret, which is one that a person promised (and before he learned it) to keep from others. The promise here is either implicit or explicit. An implicit promise of secrecy is one that is demanded by the confidential nature of communications between two parties (professional secret), as when physicians, lawyers, priests, parents, or friends are told of private matters on account of their position or relationship. An explicit promise is one that is given in express terms, as when A says to B: “I have a matter of great importance to tell you, but you must first promise that you will keep it secret”; and on B promising, A confides to him the secret.

Sinfulness of Violating a. Secret.—A secret is the property of its owner, and to it he has a strict right; for if it is a good secret (such as an original idea or discovery), it is the product of his labor or at least a possession which he has lawfully come by; if it is an evil secret (such as a crime of which he has been guilty), it may not be made known without infringing on his right of reputation. It is no more lawful to violate the right to a secret than to violate the right to property, and, as there are three kinds of injuries to property, so there are three kinds of injuries to a secret.

(a) Thus, the right of possession is injured by those who by fraud or force or other illegal means deprive another of his secret (e.g., by secretly intercepting private letters, by making a person drunk in order to learn a secret).

(b) The right of use is injured by those who on acquiring knowledge of a secret guide themselves or others by it to the detriment of the owner’s rights.

(c) The right of disposition is injured by those who reveal a secret which they were obliged not to reveal.

Prying Into Others’ Secrets.—To seek to discover the secrets of others is not lawful unless the following conditions are present:

(a) one must have a right to the knowledge. Hence, if there is question about a crime that has been committed or that is about to be committed, one has a right to investigate in order to prevent harm to public or private good; in war one may try to discover the plans of the enemy. But it is not lawful to pry into purely personal matters, to fish from others natural or confidential secrets which they are bound to keep, to steal from another the thoughts, plans, inventions, etc, which are his own;

(b) one must use only honest means to discover secrets to which one has a right (1504). Thus, it does not seem lawful generally to inebriate another in order to learn his secret, and it is certainly sinful to resort to lies or simulation or immorality.

Reading Another’s Letters or Papers.—When is it lawful to read the letters or other papers of another person?

(a) This is lawful when the writings are not intended to be secret to anyone, as when a circular is meant for public use, when greetings are written on a postcard which all may read, and when a letter is left open and thrown away or otherwise abandoned. But a sealed letter, or one left open in a private room, or one lost in a public place, is secret. If a letter or manuscript has been torn up by its owner and thrown away on the street or other public place, it does not seem lawful to piece the fragments together and read the writing, for, though the paper has been abandoned, the owner by destroying it has indicated his will to keep the contents secret.

(b) It is also lawful to read the writing of others that are not secret as regards oneself, as when one has received a just permission from the writer to peruse a letter written by him, or when one may presume such permission on account of friendship with the writer, or when rule or lawful custom gives the superior of an institution the right to inspect the correspondence of his subjects. Exception must be made for exempted matter for which there is no permission, such as letters containing conscience matters and letters directed to higher religious superiors (see Canon 611).

(c) It is also lawful to read the writings of others that are meant to be secret, if one has a right to know what is in them: for in such a case the owner would be unreasonable if he wished to exclude one from the knowledge. Thus, the public authority (e.g., in time of war) has the right to open and read letters and private papers, when this is necessary for the common good; parents and heads of boarding schools may examine the correspondence of their subjects, though parents should respect conscience matter and others should not read family secrets; private individuals have the natural right, as a measure of self-defense, to read another’s letter, when there is a prudent reason for thinking that it contains something gravely and unjustly harmful to themselves (such as conspiracy, a trap, calumny).

Lawfulness of Utilizing Knowledge of Secret.—One is said to use the knowledge obtained from a secret when one guides one’s conduct by the knowledge, doing or omitting what one would not otherwise do or omit. Is this use of a secret lawful?

(a) If there was a promise not to use the secret, such use is unlawful (see 2414). Breach of promise is then, in case of a merely promised secret, an act of infidelity at least, and in case of an entrusted secret an act of injustice. Thus, when one consults a professional person, there is a tacit understanding that the knowledge communicated will not be used against one’s interests or without one’s consent, and hence a lawyer would be unjust if, on learning in the course of work for a client that the latter’s business was not prosperous, he gave word of this to one of the client’s creditors.

(b) If there was no promise not to use the secret, the use of it is nevertheless unjust, if it infringes a strict right (e.g., to make money from a secret process on which another has a patent, to get knowledge of another’s information and plans through reading his letters and thereby to prevent him from securing a vacant position), or if it is equivalent to unjust revelation of a secret. The use is uneharitable if it harms another person without necessity (e.g., to take away one’s trade from a deserving merchant solely because one has learned that on one occasion he was accidentally intoxicated).

(c) If there was no promise to avoid use and no harm will be done by use, it is lawful to use a secret for a non-necessary good (e.g., to raise the price on one’s property when one accidentally learns through overhearing a secret conversation that the property is worth the higher price), and it is obligatory to use it for a necessary good (e.g., to assist a neighbor when one is told under secret that he is in dire need of one’s charitable help). Even though harm will result to another by use of the secret, use is not sinful if it infringes no right and could be sacrificed only at great inconvenience to oneself, as when one has discovered by one’s own industry some important truth in an art or science which another had previously discovered but had neglected to make his own by exclusive right, or when one learns under secret that another person is one’s enemy and has to be watched and avoided.

The Sin Committed by Stealing or Unduly Using the Secret of Another.—(a) From its nature (cases of mere fidelity excepted) the sin is mortal, as being a violation of commutative justice or of charity. Injury to property rights, whether in goods or in knowledge, is violation of a strict right (see 1890, 1894). The sin is aggravated by the greater import of the secret or by the greater damages or displeasure caused.

(b) From the imperfection of the act or the lightness of the matter the sin may become venial, as when one thoughtlessly reads another person’s letters, or opens correspondence without authority, feeling morally sure that there is nothing confidential in it, or makes use of an unimportant secret without permission.

The Obligation of Keeping a Secret.—(a) The natural secret obliges per se under grave sin; for violation of it offends charity and justice by saddening and harming a neighbor. The sin may become venial on account of lightness of matter, as when little sadness or harm is caused.

(b) The promised secret obliges ordinarily under light sin only; for as a rule the promisor intends to obligate himself in virtue of fidelity alone (1888), and the obligation of fidelity, as said above (see 2407), is not grave. But exceptionally the obligation may be grave, as when the promisor intended to bind himself in virtue of justice and under grave sin, or when the secret is natural as well as promised.

(c) The entrusted secret obliges per se under grave sin; for there is a duty of commutative and of legal justice to keep it, on account of the rights of contract and of the common good that are involved. The violator of an entrusted secret injures private good by disregard for contract, and he injures public good by weakening confidence in officials or professional persons to whom others must go for advice or assistance. Violation of a committed secret may be only a venial sin on account of the lightness of the matter. Thus, some think it is not a serious injustice to reveal a secret to one very discreet person, if the person whose secret is made known is not very much opposed to this and no other damage will result (see 2065).

Comparison of Secrets as Regards Binding Force.—(a) The promised secret obliges less than the natural or the entrusted, as was said in the previous paragraph. (b) The natural secret obliges less per se than the entrusted secret, for the safeguarding of the latter is agreed to in an onerous contract, while no engagement is made to keep the former. (c) Some entrusted secrets are more sacred than others. Thus, a secret confided from necessity is more binding than one confided without necessity; a secret one has sworn to keep is more obligatory than a secret one has given one’s word of honor to keep; a professional secret is more imperious than a private secret; a state secret is far more important than any secret of private individuals. The most inviolable of all secrets is that of the confessional, because its violation is always a sacrilege.

Cases Wherein It Is Not Necessary to Keep a Secret.—(a) If there has been no obligation from the time the secret was learned, it is not necessary to keep it. Thus, if a merely promised secret was accepted under compulsion and revelation will be advantageous and not harmful, it does not seem necessary to keep the secret.

(b) If the obligation of the secret has ceased, it is not necessary to be silent. Examples are cases in which secrecy was promised only for a certain space of time, or in which a matter formerly secret has become public, or in which the owner of the secret wishes it to be divulged, or in which he has not kept faith with the possessor of the secret, provided of course that in these cases no injury or unnecessary harm is done by making known the secret. Similarly, if the recipient of the secret cannot keep it without grave harm (e.g., death) to himself, he is not bound by it, unless charity (see 1165, 1236) or justice calls for the contrary. Commutative justice would demand silence (though many make exception for a most grave reason, regarding a promise to the contrary as prodigal) if there had been an express contract to guard the secret at all risks; legal justice would demand it, if the safety of the republic were involved.

Cases Wherein It Is Not Lawful to Keep a Secret.—(a) If a secret cannot be kept without greater harm to the common good, it may not be kept, for legal justice requires that private good be subordinated to public safety. The violation of secrets is a harm to the public good and a greater harm than ordinary evils against the community (such as the escape of a guilty person); but it is a less harm than serious evils against the people (such as menace to public health, sedition, or treason). The possessor of a natural or promised secret must make it known at the command of lawful authority, as in court; but the superior has no right to question about entrusted secrets of a necessary kind, and this is usually recognized by positive law in the protection extended to professional communications.

(b) If a secret cannot be kept without greater harm to the private good of the owner of the secret, distinction is made between a non-entrusted and an entrusted secret. In the former case the secret may not be kept, for charity bids one to help a neighbor escape a greater evil, and the owner of the secret would be unreasonable if he were opposed to its revelation (see 501 sqq.). In the latter case, some are of the opinion that the secret should be kept, if it is professional (since the public good then takes precedence over the private good of the owner of the secret), but this is denied by others. Example: Titus knows that Balbus is about to marry with a secret impediment that will nullify the marriage, but he cannot persuade Balbus to disclose this impediment to the pastor.

(c) If a secret cannot be kept without greater harm to the private good of a third party (i.e., one other than the owner of the secret), distinction is made between cases, according as injury is or is not done by the owner of the secret to the third party. If no injury is done the third party, the secret should be kept (e.g., if one knows in confidence that Sempronius has made an invention which will supersede an invention made by Claudius, one is not at liberty to make this known to the latter, for Sempronius has done no injury to Claudius). If, however, injury is done the third party by the owner of the secret when the secret is kept, one should not keep the secret; for charity requires that one help an innocent person to escape from harm, even if this has to be done at the expense of harm to the guilty cause of the harm. Examples: If one knows as a secret that A, B and C have conspired to murder D tomorrow night, and one cannot otherwise prevent the murder, one should if possible break the secret, at least by sending warning to D that his life is in danger tomorrow night. If a doctor knows that a man who is about to contract marriage is syphilitic and pretends that he is sound, and if the doctor cannot persuade this man to make the facts known to the intended wife, the doctor himself should give notice to the woman, according to some authorities, unless the laws of the country forbid such use of professional knowledge.

What should the possessor of an entrusted secret do, if from the secret he knows that the one who entrusted it is guilty of a crime for which an innocent third person is about to be convicted and sentenced?

(a) If the guilty party is responsible for the plight of the innocent party (e.g., because he falsely accused him or threw suspicion on him), natural law would require the possessor of the secret to make known the true state of affairs; for the guilty party is then the unjust cause of damage and is bound to accuse himself (see 1763). Revelation of the true culprit would not be necessary, however, if there was some other way of saving the innocent person.

(b) If the guilty person is not responsible for the difficulty in which the innocent person finds himself, not having used any means to bring the latter into suspicion, some believe that the secret should be kept, since the guilty person has then the right to keep his secret and therefore has also the right that his confidants keep it (see 1968). But others, while granting that the guilty person is not obliged to accuse himself, deny that the confidant is not obliged to accuse him; for the right of the guilty that his secret be kept and the right of the innocent that he be not deprived of life or liberty are in conflict and unequal, and he who prefers the former right does an injury to the innocent person (see 288).

The previous question was concerned with an innocent third party. If the holder of the secret is also the accused, it seems he is not obliged, unless perhaps when he agreed to it, to prefer the inviolability of the secret to his own justification; for the acceptance of a secret does not mean that one binds oneself to grave hardship for its preservation (see 2418). The thing to do would be to warn the guilty person to escape in time, and then to exculpate oneself by making known the truth.

Lawfulness of Revealing a Secret Learned by Stealth or Force.—Is it lawful, in order to avert some great evil, to use or reveal against the interests or wishes of its owner a secret which one has learned by stealth (e.g., by spying, eavesdropping, wiretapping, unauthorized inspection of papers) or by force? Various answers are given to this question, but to us the following seems the best:

(a) if the stealth or force would not be unjust here and now, because the owner of the secret has a duty to disclose it (e.g., on account of the public good, on account of the extreme need of a private person), or the other party has a right to seek after it (e.g., because he cannot otherwise defend himself against the unjust vexation of the owner of the secret), the answer is in the affirmative; for in such a case there is only applied the principle of lawful occupation or of lawful self-defense (see 1920 sqq., 1819). But if the stealth or force is excessive in its manner or productive of unnecessary harm, it is sinful and induces the duty of restitution, nor is there any right to make such use or such revelation of a secret as is sinful in itself (e.g., on account of calumnies, scandals, disorders);

(b) if the stealth or force would be unjust here and now, the answer is in the negative; for in such a case there is real theft of a secret, a person’s most intimate possession, and a continuation of the original injury by the use of the stolen property against its owner, or at least an unlawful conversion of property. Hence, if there is no grave or proportionate reason for the use of the secret, or if other and simpler methods can be employed, the secret may not be used. Those who play the detective ostensibly for other reasons but really for purposes of blackmail or other personal advantage, are therefore in the same class as thieves and are bound to restitution; their sin is per se mortal, for secrets are usually esteemed more highly than money, and it would be seriously detrimental to the public weal if the practice of using secrets unlawfully obtained (e.g., by secretly taking down privileged communications or state secrets) were permissible.

418. I. Notion of a secret. A secret is a matter, not yet made public knowledge, which ought to be preserved hidden. - It can be threefold: (a) natural, which from the very nature of the matter ought to be guarded, because the matter cannot be manifested without damage to the neighbor; e.g., if you know where another's money is hidden which robbers intend to steal, by the natural law, without any promise, you are prohibited from manifesting this; (b) promised, when someone explicitly promises to keep silence concerning a hidden matter which he already knew beforehand; e.g., if someone, after hearing a secret, spontaneously or at the petition of a friend, says: I promise you to press the matter with deep silence; (c) committed, when the matter is not revealed to someone except under an express or tacit promise of preserving secrecy; express, if it is said: I shall not manifest this matter to you except under the condition that you be silent concerning it; tacit, when a hidden matter is committed to someone who from office, by force of the duty which he bears, or by special title of kinship or friendship, is bound to preserve the secret matter; thus physicians, advocates, priests, parents and friends and others, to whom a hidden matter is not manifested except because it is supposed that it is to be guarded faithfully. - When a sin is declared under the seal of confession, it is called sacramental.

419. II. On the obligation of a secret. First principle: Those who violate a natural or committed secret without cause commit a sin against justice, and indeed grave from its kind.

(A) As regards a natural secret, this is clear; for, from the definition given above, it cannot be violated without damage being inflicted upon the neighbor in the goods of body, soul, or fortune; and therefore to manifest such a secret without cause is the same as cooperating unjustly with the damage of the neighbor. - But the gravity of the sin depends on the gravity of the damage which is foreseen or can be foreseen.

(B) A committed secret obliges even more strictly from justice; for in this case there is a true contract, explicit or implicit, by force of which the one hearing the secret obliges himself to preserve it inviolably; if therefore he manifests it without reason, he harms the neighbor and society: (a) the neighbor, because he violates the strict right which the latter has that the secret be preserved, which was not revealed except under the condition of guarding it faithfully;¹ (b) society; for the common good demands that all may safely seek counsel or aid from those who, from office or by title of special friendship, are able to offer it; but men would be deprived of this utility if a committed secret could be manifested without grave cause; for who would confidently approach a physician, advocate, priest, and disclose to him secrets whose manifestation can harm him, unless he were certain that the same would be guarded inviolably?

¹ Hence civil laws affect violators of professional secrecy with severe penalties; cf. Cod. pen. gal., art. 378; Supplement, p. 72*.

420. Second principle: Those who violate a merely promised secret without cause sin against justice or fidelity, according to the intention of the one promising.

For he who promises something can bind himself in two ways: from justice indeed, if by explicit declaration, or implicitly from various circumstances, he manifests his intention of obliging himself thus; from fidelity, if he does not wish to undertake such an obligation, but only intends to confirm words by deeds. In the former case, the promise of itself obliges under grave sin, provided the matter is grave; in the latter, it binds only under light sin. Yet it must be noted that it is unworthy of an honorable man to violate these promises without reason.²

² "There could not exist a society, in fact, which does not rest on this firmly established principle: that every word given is sacred... What should one think of a man who has several words, or who has no word, for it is all one? In vain he lavishes his word of honor; it has no value in the eyes of anyone. Can one imagine a more certain sign of moral decline?" (Marion, Lecons de Morale, 11th ed., Paris, 1901, p. 269-270.)

I said merely promised, because it happens not rarely that a promised secret is at the same time natural, because it cannot be revealed without damage; then it obliges from justice, according to what was said above.

421. III. On the causes excusing from revelation of a secret. These ought to be greater the stricter the obligation is of preserving it; but this obligation depends on two things: (a) on the nature of the secret; for from what has been said, a committed secret obliges more strictly than a merely promised secret; and that which is at the same time natural and committed binds more strictly than a merely natural one; (b) on the damage inflicted: the graver and more irreparable the damage inflicted by the manifestation of the secret is, the greater cause is required for revealing it. - With these things posited, there are four causes from which a secret can legitimately be manifested:¹

¹ Some thought that a secret can never be revealed, even for saving the life of a friend; Fenelon excellently refutes these, in a letter, hitherto unknown, to L. de Sacy, which E. Levesque, S.S., made public in the periodical Revue des Facultes Cathol. de l'Ouest, April 1902, p. 511-526; from which we excerpt these things: "The silence which you would keep and which would cause your innocent friend to perish is contrary to humanity, to Christian charity, to good faith, and to the security of men in society... It is true that the secret which was told to you is a kind of deposit... It is not at all a deposit of sincere confidence, but a trap which is laid for you to force you to be an accomplice in a crime. Now society, which has so much interest in the preservation of other deposits, and in inviolable fidelity concerning other secrets, has a capital interest that the fraudulent deposit of so criminal a secret not be guarded, and that this deceiving depositor be confounded in his own deception... It is true that fidelity concerning a secret is a virtue, but this virtue is inferior to humanity, to charity, to the general order of human society... I would not wish, however, that you turn the secret against that unjust man from whom you hold it. To avoid this inconvenience, say to your friend only what is absolutely necessary for saving his life. Say it only to him alone. Say it to him only by using all the power which friendship gives you and all that which is acquired for you by the singular service which you actually render him, in order to prevent him from avenging himself."

422. 1. The public good of civil or ecclesiastical society; for since the obligation of a secret was chiefly introduced on account of the public good, its obligation ceases when the public good demands the revelation of the secret, according to this: the safety of the commonwealth is the supreme law. But here there is question of a proportionately grave public good: therefore the damage threatening the commonwealth must be compared with the damage going to follow from the violation itself of the secret, and the lesser evil, with all things carefully weighed, must be chosen. Thus if someone under secrecy, even committed secrecy, knows another's plan of betraying a city, and cannot otherwise impede its execution, he can and ought to manifest it to authority; but light damage does not suffice, arising namely from the fact that some guilty person will remain unpunished.

423. 2. The good of him who handed down the secret; for he is not judged unwilling, since there is question of promoting his own good; thus if someone knows that another wishes to marry, although bound by a diriment impediment, and that this evil cannot otherwise be averted than by manifesting the impediment to his own priest. Yet the case of a secret which was committed by reason of public office is excepted (De Matrim., n. 200): for then the public good demands that such a secret be guarded.

424. 3. The good of an innocent third party, namely when grave damage to him cannot be averted in another way; e.g., if you know, even under secrecy, that snares are being unjustly prepared for Titius, and that his death cannot otherwise be impeded than by revealing the secret, it is licit to do this; for charity demands that we impede grave damage to an innocent person even with damage to the guilty. - But if there is question of a committed secret, it is not licit to manifest it, unless the damage to be inflicted is from him who committed the secret; for, if it were revealed in other circumstances, the public good could be injured, as was explained above; but on the supposition that the one committing the secret himself wishes to kill or wound an innocent person, he now becomes an unjust aggressor, and the innocent person can be warned to beware for himself.¹

¹ Yet in many regions this is prohibited to those who have received the secret from office; thus physicians are forbidden to reveal a hidden contagious disease even to relatives.

425. 4. One's own good, namely when he who heard the secret cannot flee grave damage except by manifesting the secret; for he is not judged to have obliged himself with so great an inconvenience.

Yet the matter becomes more difficult if there is question of a committed secret; e.g., Caius is falsely accused of homicide, whose author he knows from a committed secret: can he manifest him, in order to spare his own life? - It is answered affirmatively if the author of the crime falsely accused him to whom he committed the secret: for then he is an unjust aggressor. But if the calumny proceeds from another source, it is controverted; each opinion seems probable; in practice the name of the guilty man can be manifested, if he is first warned that he should provide for himself by flight: for then he cannot complain.

But when the common good demands that a hidden matter be altogether preserved, even with the greatest private damage, - e.g., if the guarding of the secret is necessary for the security of the State or army, - it is necessary to die for the fatherland rather than betray the secret.

426. IV. Corollaries. 1. He who without legitimate authority and just cause maliciously investigates or extorts the secrets of another, of itself sins gravely against justice.

For each one has a right to his own secret: for nothing is more proper to man than the hidden things of the heart; now that right is injured as often as another maliciously, that is, through force, deceit, or fraud, tries to fish out these secrets. - But the gravity of the sin depends on the very gravity of the hidden matter which is thus extorted.

It was said (a) without legitimate authority; for superiors, whether ecclesiastical or civil, can and ought sometimes to investigate secrets on account of the common good; thus Bishops inquire concerning those to be ordained whether something is known against them; likewise magistrates from office can and ought to uncover crimes even hidden ones.

(b) Without just cause: for if it is licit to manifest a secret for averting grave damage, from what has been said above, by that very fact it is licit to investigate it; e.g., if someone were very probably to suspect that snares were being unjustly prepared for him, he would have the right of investigating the matter, and of exploring the secret counsels of adversaries: for this is the case of legitimate defense.

427. 2. He who justly or unjustly uncovers the secrets of another cannot use them to the damage of the neighbor; e.g., if someone by chance hears others conversing about a new invention, still hidden, he cannot use this knowledge for his own advantage; for otherwise he inflicts injury upon them, because they will no longer be able to obtain the exclusive privilege to which they had a right. A fortiori if, by unjustly opening another's letters, you know that some office is vacant, you cannot seek it with the damage of another: for thus you would deprive another of the legitimate hope of obtaining the same.

428. 3. From this it can be understood what must be said concerning the violation of a secret contained in letters.

(A) Of itself it is a grave sin to open and read another's letters, without the consent of him to whom they were written. For often secrets, some of which can be of great moment, are contained in these letters, e.g., matters pertaining to family, to business, or to conscience; and therefore by reading these letters without license, one exposes himself to the danger of unjustly knowing a secret of great moment.

429. (B) Yet the sin will be light: (a) if it is reasonably presumed that in these letters nothing is to be found except what is of lesser moment, e.g., if someone already knows the nature of the matters which are usually treated between two friends; (b) if the letters are opened or read from levity of mind, or without full advertence, and the reading is interrupted as soon as it is noticed that the matter is grave.

(C) But there will be no sin: (a) if express or tacit consent is present, - which nevertheless ought not easily to be presumed, - e.g., if spouses or friends are accustomed to hand over to one another to be read the letters which they receive from a common friend; (b) if in certain communities or colleges it is licit for the superior, from received custom or rule, to read the letters of subjects; for then the inferiors, by accepting the custom or rule, give tacit consent; yet letters sent to major superiors or received from them are excepted, and also those in which secrets of conscience are opened, from the reading of which the superior ought to abstain; (c) if the reading of some letter is necessary for averting damage threatening the commonwealth or private persons, according to what was said above.

430. (D) If letters have been thrown away by the owner, or knowingly left in a public place, they can be read without injustice, because he is deservedly judged to have renounced his right; but otherwise, if this happened against his intention.

But what if the owner tore up the letter and threw away its fragments? Not a few theologians hold that it can be read without injustice, because by so acting the owner renounced his right.¹ But much more probably others teach that this is not licit; for by tearing up the letters, he sufficiently signified that he did not wish them to be read by others, and therefore did not renounce his right.²

¹ Layman, lib. III, tr. III, p. 1, c. 4, n. 4; Lugo, d. XIV, n. 150; Vogler, n. 388.

² St. Alphonsus, lib. II, De peccatis, n. 70, with the authors alleged there.

1. A secret (secretum) is something hidden or concealed, or, more properly, knowledge or information which we are in duty bound to keep from others.

There are various kinds of secrets. a) A secret is called natural (secretum naturale) if a man has accidentally or inadvertently or purposely through his own efforts (secretum extortum) obtained a knowledge of something which he may not reveal to others without violating justice or charity, or which the one concerned has a right to hide. The latter category includes everything that cannot be revealed without injury to the honor, reputation, or property of others. If a crime can be prevented, or an injustice righted by the revelation of a secret, it may be revealed, but only to those who are in a position to act effectively, for instance, parents and superiors. b) The duty of keeping a secret sometimes rests upon positive grounds, as when a secret has been communicated or entrusted to one in an official capacity, or for safe-keeping under promise of silence. To the former class (secreta commissa) belong the so-called official or professional secrets, i. e., communications made to a man solely because of his official station or office, or communications made because of knowledge he has obtained by means of official functions or by participation in debates or trials. c) The promised secret (secretum promissum) arises from the fact that one has, through one’s own efforts, obtained a knowledge of a secret and then bound himself by a promise to keep it from others.

If a man comes for professional advice to another, as to a lawyer or a doctor, or simply to a friend for moral counsel, and in order thereto imparts to him natural secrets, those secrets, as they are received and held by the person consulted, are called secrets of trust or privileged secrets, be- cause, in contradistinction to natural secrets and secrets of promise, they need not be delivered up at the demand of an authority empowered to inquire in the department in which the secret lies.

The highest kind of privileged secret is that called sacramental. It is protected by the seal of confession (secretum sacramentale, sigillum confessionis) and arises from the Sacrament of Penance.²

² Cfr. this Handbook, Vol. II, pp. 167 sqq.—J. P. Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, n. 485, 488; Irish Theol. Quarterly, Vol. V (1910), No. 17; Vol. VIII (1913), No. 29, No. 31.

2. The duty of keeping secrets needs to be more accurately circumscribed. a) Broadly speaking, a man is bound to keep every secret of which he has knowledge. To divulge a secret of any kind without urgent reason is a sin against both charity and justice, the guilt of which is measured, first, by the malice involved in the act, and, secondly, by the importance of the secret divulged and the injury inflicted by its revelation.

It is sinful to induce others to violate the duty of secrecy, especially if it is done maliciously or by force.

More particularly, the obligation of secrecy is gauged by the nature of the secret. The seal of confession by its very nature binds absolutely and always. So-called natural secrets are based upon the obligation of justice, which man owes his fellowmen, and which admits of exceptions for just reasons, and does not exclude silent reservation.

Silent reservation is admissible also in regard to committed or entrusted secrets, nay, even in regard to secrets promised under oath.³

³ J. P. Gury, op. cit., I, n. 486: “Question I: What are the just causes for disclosing a secret? Answer: (1) The rightly presumed consent of the person whose interest it is to conceal the secret; (2) disclosure of the matter made from another source; (3) harm that would follow from the secret to the commonwealth or to private persons; indeed, a grave obligation to reveal the secret sometimes presses, especially by reason of the public good. Question II: Can you reveal a secret if you have promised to keep it even at the cost of your life? Answer: (1) Affirmatively, if the common good demands it, because a promise made against the common good is null; (2) negatively, if it concerns your own merely grave harm, because it is better to keep the secret promised by this special contract. More probably negatively even if it concerns your own extreme harm, because you expressly renounced your right, and it is not unlawful to omit the preservation of life in order to keep your promise. Nevertheless St. Alphonsus [l. III, n. 971, ed. Gaudé, II, 361] rightly says that the contrary is sufficiently probable.”—Reg. Iuris in VI° Decr. Bonifacii VIII, n. 69: “In evil promises it is not expedient to keep faith.”—Cfr. this Handbook, Vol. IV, p. 260, n. 16.

The obligation of keeping professional or official secrets rests upon fidelity, without which the social order could not exist, and can therefore be modified only by the exigencies of public welfare. b) Apart from the seal of confession, which, as we have said, binds absolutely and at all times, the obligation of keeping a secret ceases whenever there is a just cause or excuse for disclosing the same, that is to say, when the secret has become publicly known without the co-operation of him who knows of it, and the welfare of any of the parties concerned in it or the public interest require that it be revealed. This would be the case, for instance, if an innocent man were to suffer serious injury unless a secret were disclosed or if a criminal could be reformed by divulging it.

Generally speaking, the obligation of keeping a secret does not hold before the law if the secret involves matters which may not be legitimately concealed, e. g., unjust plots against others or against the commonwealth, abuses and faults which cannot be corrected without publicity, etc.

In such cases it makes no difference whether an oath is involved or not.

852. A secret, subjectively taken, is knowledge of a thing hidden from others and to be hidden, or the knowledge and obligation of not manifesting some hidden thing; objectively, it is the hidden thing itself and to be hidden, which can be very diverse: an invention of art or science, or some fact, for example that an office is vacant, or an unknown crime. In the present matter, secret is chiefly taken subjectively. It is threefold:

a) Natural, whose obligation arises without contract from the very nature of the thing, because it cannot be manifested without harm or displeasure of the neighbor, and accordingly without his being reasonably unwilling. Thus if by chance or by effort you know another's money laid away, an invention, or a hidden crime, it is not licit to manifest it.

b) Promised, whose obligation arises from a gratuitous promise following upon knowledge of the matter, or because someone has promised to keep it, even if the matter from its nature does not induce an obligation of secrecy; for example, if someone concerning a thing previously known or now already received, spontaneously or at a friend's request, promises silence.

c) Committed or rigorous, whose obligation arises from an onerous promise antecedent to the reception of the secret, or because it is committed under an express or tacit pact of keeping it and is thus accepted by another.

Namely, first, expressly or tacitly, it is promised that it is not to be revealed: expressly indeed if someone says that he will not manifest the matter except under the express condition that the other keep silence about it (a private secret, which is required on account of a private good); tacitly when from some fact it is clear that the matter is committed under secrecy and that the other accepts it thus, as if it is committed to someone who by office, by force of the duty he bears, or by the special title of kinship or friendship, is bound not to manifest it (an officious or professional secret, which is required on account of the public good), for example, to a counselor, physician, midwife, advocate, theologian, confessor, visitor, parents, friends, etc., to whom a matter is manifested only because it is supposed to be faithfully guarded by them.

Consequently a committed secret obliges in varying degree: less when it was committed wholly freely, more if to a private person for the sake of counsel, still more if to one established in office, most of all when it is committed to a counselor in a public cause.

853. Principles. - Everyone has a strict right to his own secret. That right is proximately founded partly in dominion over one's own thoughts and the fruits of one's own genius or labor, partly in the right to reputation and external goods, insofar as, namely, from a violated secret there can be harm to reputation or fortune, or ceasing gain; ultimately it is founded in the common good. Hence the right of secrecy is relative and limited. Therefore of itself it is illicit, and indeed gravely, 1. to explore a secret; 2. to manifest a secret; 3. to use knowledge of a secret.

I. To explore a secret is illicit without legitimate authority or a just cause. For a secret is another's thing; therefore one who illegitimately explores it, for example by force, deceit, or fraud, usurps another's thing and takes it away from its owner. The gravity of this sin depends on the gravity of the thing which is extorted.

Hence a) of itself and generally it is illicit to listen at a wall or door, or to open letters, or to break open a chest, or to corrupt servants or workers in order to know another's secret, even an invention of art or science.¹

¹ An invention of art or science can licitly be detected by art or study; but this properly is not directly to explore another's secret, but to devise a similar invention by one's own ingenuity, whereby another's secret indirectly becomes known.

b) From legitimate authority, superiors (bishops, magistrates, judges) sometimes can and ought to explore secrets on account of the common good, for example, for detecting crimes committed or to be committed; and parents can do so on account of the good of children and of the family.

c) From a just cause, for example to avoid unjust harm, whether proper, common, or of an innocent third party, it is licit to explore the secret of him from whom harm threatens, for example, a crime committed or probably to be committed against oneself or against an innocent third party, the forces and positions of enemies in a just war.

II. To manifest a secret of itself is illicit, as being against charity and at the same time against fidelity or justice, because it is apt to be done with harm or displeasure of another, or also violates a promise or pact.

III. To use knowledge of a secret for one's own advantage or that of a third party, against the owner's will, is illicit, especially if it is done with his harm; a fortiori it is illicit if someone has detected the secret unjustly, because it would be to continue injustice.

Unless, however, it is in those circumstances in which there is a sufficient just cause for exploring a secret. But one who by unjustly using another's secret, as by revealing it, has brought harm upon another, is bound to restitution.

854. What the obligation of secrecy is. - I. A natural secret obliges from justice, by reason of harm; and one who violates it without just cause commits a grave sin from its genus.

II. A merely promised secret of itself obliges from fidelity alone, by reason of a simple promise; and one who violates it without just cause commits a venial sin, unless he intended to bind himself from justice, or the secret is at the same time natural.

III. A committed secret obliges from justice, by reason of a special contract; and one who violates it without just cause therefore sins gravely, and indeed more gravely, other things being equal, than for a natural secret. Especially if the secret is officious, because the common good regularly demands that it be preserved inviolate: for it pertains to the common good that all may safely seek counsel or help from those who by office or special title are able to furnish it. Hence such a secret ought not to be manifested to a judge or superior interrogating, and it also obliges if otherwise it would have had to be manifested; so that it is never to be revealed unless the common good demands it and by the law of nature it must altogether be revealed.²

² St. Thomas, II-II, q. 70, a. 1, ad 2.

855. There is a threefold just cause for manifesting a secret, on account of which the obligation of secrecy ceases:

1. The consent of him whose secret it is, at least reasonably presumed; for example, if a subject is denounced under secrecy, the superior can manifest, not indeed the denouncer, but the offense, in order to correct the delinquent.

2. Divulgation of the matter made from elsewhere; hence it is licit for him who had otherwise known a committed secret to speak about the secret, or to speak with a man who has knowledge of it.

3. The necessity of averting harm: generally it is licit to reveal a secret whenever this revelation is necessary for averting proportionately grave harm, public or private, proper or another's; indeed charity and legal justice sometimes require this manifestation. But a greater necessity is required the stricter and graver the obligation of keeping the secret is, which depends both on the nature of the secret and on the harm to be brought by manifestation.

But a fourfold necessity is given on account of which it is licit to manifest a secret as much as is sufficient for averting harm:

a) Grave common harm of civil society or of the Church: for the obligation of secrecy, which is principally introduced on account of the public good, ceases where the public good requires the manifestation of the secret, according to the adage: the safety of the republic is the supreme law. Therefore not just any harm to be avoided suffices, for example from the fact that otherwise some guilty man remains unpunished, but urgent necessity from a most grave impending harm.

Thus if someone under secrecy, even committed secrecy, has known another's purpose of greatly harming the city or the Church, from which he cannot otherwise be recalled, he can and ought to reveal the secret to authority. So also a physician is bound to denounce a sick person who could easily infect others gravely.

b) Grave harm of the very person committing the secret: for then he cannot be reasonably unwilling.

Thus, to prevent a marriage from being invalid, a hidden impediment which someone has known under secrecy must be revealed to the proper priest.

c) Grave harm of an innocent third party to be averted by revelation of the secret of the harmful person: for charity demands that we prevent grave harm of an innocent person, even with harm of the guilty person.

Yet if the matter concerns a committed secret, especially an officious one, it will not be able to be manifested unless the harm is still to be inflicted and by the very person who committed the secret about the harm to be inflicted. For the common good regularly requires that such a secret be kept, except in the case in which the one committing it is himself an unjust aggressor, against whom the innocent person can be defended. Thus if someone from a committed secret should know Peter to be a murderer, he could not reveal the matter to free Paul unjustly accused; yet he could do so if the accusation had been made by Peter himself. Likewise a physician, knowing by professional secrecy that a bridegroom is infected with venereal disease, could manifest the matter to the deceived bride, indeed he ought to do so, if the bridegroom, having been warned, would not desist from marriage.

d) Grave proper harm, for example danger of death, even if similar grave harm threatened another: for no one is judged to have bound himself with so great an inconvenience, unless he has expressly promised it and the promise was valid.

Yet if the matter concerns a committed secret, it will not be able to be manifested with great harm (for example, of life) to the one committing it, unless the danger comes from him, because then he is an unjust aggressor; otherwise, however, it is illicit. But in practice, the one committing it can first be warned about taking precautions against the harm which threatens him from the revelation to be made. Thus one who is falsely accused of homicide, whose author he knows from a committed secret, if it is necessary, can reveal the name of the guilty person after he has warned him to protect himself by flight.

Let it be noted that a secret can never be manifested, even for averting a most grave harm of death, proper or another's, if the common good demands that the hidden matter be wholly kept, as if the custody of the secret is altogether necessary for the security of society or of an army. Thus the secret of the seal of the sacrament of Penance can never be violated, because the greater good of religion and the salvation of the faithful always demands that it be preserved inviolate.

856. Corollary: on the secrecy of letters. - To open another's letters, or to read those already opened and kept in a closed place, for example in a desk, or lost by chance, of itself is a sin grave from its genus against justice: for everyone has a strict right to his own secret; and one who explores it without the owner's consent acts after the manner of a thief.

1. Hence they sin gravely who intend to know in this way secrets of great importance (matters regarding family, business, or conscience), or expose themselves to the danger of knowing them.

2. Nevertheless the sin will be only slight: a) of itself, if it is morally certain or can reasonably be presumed that nothing is found in these letters except matters of lesser importance, such as greetings, narrations of lesser events, commercial notes, and that grave infamy or grave harm cannot arise therefrom; b) accidentally, if letters are read from levity of mind or without full advertence, for example, to know news, to laugh at a barbarous manner of writing, and the reading is interrupted as soon as it appears that the matter is grave.

3. There will be no sin: a) if the consent of the sender or recipient is present, express or tacit, which nevertheless is not easily presumed: thus if spouses or friends are accustomed to hand over to each other letters received from a common friend to be read; b) in communities, institutes, or colleges in which it has been established by law, rule, or custom that superiors can read the letters of inferiors; in which case, however, letters sent to higher superiors are exempted, and in other letters those parts which it is clear deal solely with secrets of conscience; c) if on account of entirely grave motives someone judges that the letters contain injury, and the reading is necessary for averting harm threatening himself or others or the republic: nevertheless he will not be able to read more than the end requires. Thus in time of war it is licit for combatants to intercept the letters of enemies; likewise parents can read the letters of children, the rector of a college those of students, the rector of a prison those of the justly detained, a religious superior those of subjects; but not a master the letters of servants, nor a husband the letters of his wife, unless they judge with moral certainty that something harmful is contained in them.

4. Letters thrown away by the owner or knowingly left in a public place can be read without injustice, because he is deservedly judged not to vindicate his strict right; yet if something is contained there which, if revealed, would turn to the detriment of the owner, by reason of harm it must be kept hidden. But to read torn letters whose fragments are thrown away is not licit, at least if they are torn into pieces so small that the parts cannot be compared and the letter read except by an exquisite diligence which men are not accustomed to employ. For such tearing, by common estimation, is as it were destruction.

5. One who has acquired knowledge of a secret by unjustly opening letters nevertheless seems able to use it when circumstances have so changed that he now has the right of procuring for himself knowledge of that secret.

Here a secret is called whatever, either from its own nature or from a special contract, ought to be kept hidden. - A threefold secret is distinguished and is 1st. natural, if it is imposed by the very nature of the thing to be hidden, e.g., if you know something which you cannot manifest without grave injury to another either in estimation or in goods, etc.; 2nd. promised, if someone, hearing a secret from another or learning it by chance, promises that he will not reveal it; 3rd. committed, if someone manifests something to another and at the same time tacitly or expressly requires silence from him concerning it.

I say 1st. A natural secret in a grave matter obliges under grave matter, and indeed in justice, unless a just cause excuses. The reason is that from revelation of the secret harm follows to the neighbor, who has the right not to be injured without reasonable cause.

I say 2nd. A promised secret, besides the obligation of a natural secret, which by reason of the matter it can sometimes bring with it, by force of the promise alone obliges gravely or lightly according to the intention of the one promising; lightly, if the one promising binds himself only from fidelity, as often happens; gravely in grave matter, if he wished to oblige himself in justice.

I say 3rd. A committed or communicated secret, which is also called rigorous, obliges under grave matter in justice, and indeed more strictly than a merely natural secret and also than a promised one; because besides the natural obligation there also presses an obligation from an onerous contract expressly or tacitly undertaken. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 970. - Baller., note (a) and (b), p. 440.

Question 1. What are the just causes of manifesting any secret whatsoever, even if it is committed?

Response. They are 1st. the rightly presumed consent of him whose interest it is that the secret be hidden; 2nd. divulgation of the matter arising from elsewhere; 3rd. harm that will follow from the secret to the commonwealth, or to innocent private persons, or to the one entrusting it, or even to him to whom the secret is committed. I said, that will follow, because if it concerns harm already inflicted, a committed secret cannot licitly be revealed as long as the one causing harm is not himself bound to betray himself, although a natural or promised secret can, indeed ought, to be manifested to a judge legitimately interrogating, so that the harm already inflicted may be redressed. The reason for the difference is that the obligation which affects a natural or promised secret is essentially conditioned, and as it were supervenes upon the pre-existing obligation of responding to a judge legitimately interrogating. But if the matter concerns a committed secret, a judge or superior cannot abrogate the right of nature, which requires that it ought to be kept, unless the matter is already known by another way. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 970 and 971. - Baller., note (a), p. 441.

Question 2. Can you reveal a secret if you promised to keep it even with loss of life?

Response. Affirmatively, if the common good requires it, because then a promise of this kind is invalid by its own nature. But otherwise one must answer if it concerns your own simply grave harm, because you expressly renounced your right, and it is not illicit to permit yourself to incur grave harm for keeping a promise. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 971.

Question 3. Does he sin gravely who reveals a secret to one or another upright man under the same secret?

Response. Negatively, probably of itself; because in this case grave injury against another does not seem to be committed, unless nevertheless it is revealed to a person from whom the one entrusting the secret to you is rightly presumed to have especially wished it to be concealed. - I said, of itself; because in practice, on account of the circumstances of the secret, the revelation will easily become grave, namely when you suppose too lightly that the persons to whom you commit the received secret are so discreet that they will certainly keep it. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 971.

Question 4. Does he sin gravely who opens or reads another's letters?

Response. Affirmatively, because by natural right and the right of nations there is present a grave obligation of preserving the secrets of letters inviolate; otherwise human commerce would be overthrown. Except, however, the following cases: 1st. if there is tacit or presumed consent of him who writes, or of him to whom the letters are sent; 2nd. if the letters are known or presumed to contain matters of slight moment; 3rd. if it is done from a just cause, e.g., for averting public or private harm, provided no more is read than is necessary for this end; 4th. if the letters are opened from levity or from some inadvertence. Cf. St. Alphonsus, de Peccatis, n. 70; and Hom. Ap., nn. 5 and 6.

Question 5. Can you ever use knowledge unjustly acquired for freeing yourself, for example?

Response. Affirmatively, in the case in which, if you had not had that information, you could, by your own right, in order to provide for yourself, have searched it out and inquired into the secret even by deceit; otherwise you cannot. Therefore this can be done 1st. when that possessor of the secret vexes you unjustly, since it is licit to repel force by force; 2nd. when he is held to reveal the secret, because then he does not have the right of retaining it; 3rd. when it is of interest to the commonwealth that it be manifested for the common safety. Yet you cannot use it on account of some good of yours resulting from the revelation, or some evil of your own to be avoided, nor on account of that evil for the sake of which you can reveal a justly acquired secret. But if that were permitted, a door and license would be opened of searching out, by right and wrong, the secrets of one's neighbor for our utility; letters would be intercepted and other frauds employed to the ruin of human commerce and public quiet. Such a person unjustly acquiring another's secret steals his good: nothing is more intimate to a man or more his own than the secret of the heart; it is a right belonging to him from intrinsic principles, which God protects by concealing it in such a way that not even angels penetrate the secrets of man. Against this right acts he who obtains a secret by fraud or deceit and communicates it to others. Hence there would be a violation of a most strict right if someone employed the new instrument which is commonly called a dictograph, against the peace of human society: e.g., while an advocate hears his clients, or such privileged persons receive most secret things, or officials communicate hidden things of government to one another. Thus Lugo, disp. 14, nn. 100 and following.