Direct and indirect violation

- The seal can be violated in two ways: 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 can know or suspect a sin or defect ¹ of the penitent known in confession alone, or from which shame, vexation, disgrace, harm, or any burden whatever can arise for the penitent or others, for example, accomplices ².

¹ Distinguish, however, among defects; for, as was said above at no. 657, the revelation of just any defect does not import a violation of the seal.

² Understand these things with the suitable limitations which can be taken from the foregoing. For not every word or deed of a Confessor from which vexation, disgrace, harm, or a burden to the penitent follows pertains to the breaking of the sacramental seal, but only that from which some direct or indirect revelation follows of those things which pertain to the seal. Thus, for example, if the Confessor reveals that someone came also to seek alms, intercession, mediation for entering into peace, etc. Otherwise, the priest indeed will not be free from fault, but he will not sin against the seal.

** The VV. censure this short Note (p. 643, in the Note) because, they say, the distinction between a burden which is or is not against the seal involves a begging of the question.

Reply. The VV. do not seem to have sufficiently examined the first words of the Note, where it is said that the limitations can be taken from the foregoing. For in the foregoing that distinction is sufficiently declared. The VV. have an example in St. Alphonsus (Apostolic Man, treatise 16, no. 154), where he writes: If the penitent were commonly known to be excessively prolix and troublesome in confessing, the Confessor does not break the seal if he were to flee from him..., when that penitent at the same time was commonly held to be of a good conscience. Behold an act of the Confessor which surely happens to be burdensome to the penitent and nevertheless is not against the seal.

Rule I. The seal is violated indirectly whenever penitents or others can deservedly be offended by things said or done by the Confessor from knowledge had in confession alone ³. But it is not judged violated if the penitents would regard these things indifferently. The reason for each is sufficiently established from the things said above. - Thus commonly.

³ Understand this if the Confessor uses knowledge of those things which, according to the foregoing, are matter of the sacramental seal. The second part of this rule must also be rightly understood; for if the matter concerns the seal, the Confessor will sin no less against it even if he believes that perhaps the penitents would not take it ill.

Rule II. In doubt whether in such a manner of speaking or acting there is danger of revelation or offense, one must stand for the safer side, or the one favoring the seal. - Thus commonly; and it is established from the things said above, no. 650.

Rule III. There is no violation of the seal if someone narrates a sin heard in confession in such a manner that the sinners cannot be revealed by any indication. Nevertheless, apart from the utility of instruction or of seeking counsel, one must generally abstain from similar narrations; the reason is that lay hearers, especially the simple, are easily scandalized, suspecting that the seal is violated. And sometimes in these frequent and promiscuous conversations there is danger that someone may be brought into suspicion concerning the penitent, and indeed that revelation may follow.

Resolutions. - The secrecy of confession is indirectly violated by:

One who, praising one above others whom he heard, says that he committed only venial sins, because the others are thereby easily brought under suspicion of mortal fault.

One who speaks with others about a sin of the penitent known through confession alone, although they know it from another source, even if the hearers do not notice that it was received from confession.

One who says that he did not absolve such a person, that he sent him away until such a time, that he has not yet absolved him, or that the confession has not yet been completed ⁴. 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, so that the penitent would not take this ill. Likewise, one who says of Titius, known as a thief, that he confessed his thefts to him with great contrition.

⁴ It differs from these if the Confessor merely says that someone will return to him, since a penitent can and in fact does return for reasons other than those listed by the Author; and, moreover, it is sometimes necessary to tell someone this so that free access to the Confessor may lie open to the penitent. But what the Author adds, that the penitent would not take this ill, pertains to this case.

One who rebukes a penitent in a loud voice or in another manner intelligible to bystanders ⁵, for this is both grave for the penitent and introduces into others the suspicion that he confessed grave sins; a fortiori if by raising his voice excessively he were to repeat the sins of the penitent or question him about their circumstances.

⁵ Understand this unless it is established that the penitent is rebuked for another cause, for example, on account of importunities, etc.

One who speaks with another Confessor about the sins of some penitent, even if he confessed the same sins to each.

One who, after hearing the confessions of a 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. Likewise, one who so narrates sins known from confession that the hearers can by some reason conjecture or suspect who committed them.

One who, when narrating the sins of some person which he knew outside confession, adds some circumstance known from confession alone; or one who uses knowledge from confession to determine or confirm the matter more precisely.

n. 666.

- 1. One who should say that he heard a grave sin in such a monastery, even if he did not name the person, because the individual Religious of that community suffer detriment ⁶. A fortiori, one would violate the seal who should say that such sins are committed in that community. It is otherwise, however, if he should say that he heard the grave sin of some Religious in general without naming his Order, because this is neither a revelation of the seal nor does it redound to the burden of the penitent or of any Order, since among the various Orders there are not lacking some less good Religious. But scandal to the laity must be carefully guarded against.

⁶ If the individual Religious of that house suffer detriment, it is manifest that he who confessed the sin is also a participant in the infamy and burden, since he too is a part of that house; and hence arises the true reason why this turns to the prejudice of the seal.

St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 654) attributes the opposite opinion, which denies that the seal is violated through this, to Escobar (book 16, no. 752), and, in Escobar, to Nugno, Fagundez, Candido, and Henriquez, whom, however, I know not how, he afterward alleges for the other contrary opinion. Moreover, Henriquez (book 6, chapter 21, no. 6, note e) brings forward for himself Navarrus, Ledesma, Victoria, Mantica, and other more recent authors, as he says; to these, from Diana (volume 1, treatise 8, resolution 12), Malderus can also be added. But two things concerning these occur as needing observation. For, first, most of them discuss not a Monastery or Community but a Religion or Religious Order. Second, they deny that the seal is violated in the strict sense only to this extent, and indeed merely by way of opinion, insofar as such a Confessor can be punished as a revealer of confession, as Nugno says in Diana (volume 1, treatise 8, resolution 11, no. 3), or, as Malderus has it, insofar as he can be punished with the ordinary penalty inflicted against breakers of the seal. For the rest, these Doctors do not deny that one sins more or less gravely according to the quality of the crime. Indeed, Fagundez (On the Second Precept of the Church, book 6, chapter 5, no. 12) expressly admits with Suarez that one sins against the seal. Suarez has these things on this argument (On Penance, disputation 33, section 3, no. 8): One must take the greatest care lest the community to which such a person belongs be offended, as if he should designate a RELIGION in particular, because in truth this now redounds to a notable burden of the penitent on account of the injury which is done to the Community. See St. Antoninus and Navarrus, Peter Soto and Ledesma, who says that in the strict sense this is a breaking of the seal. But Navarrus says that in the strict sense it is not against the seal, although it is a sin. But surely it is not just any sin, but one against the Sacrament; therefore it is also against the seal. And Escobar, after he had said (loc. cit.) that a Confessor of this kind sins most gravely while he involves so great a Community in infamy, concludes that a priest speaking so incautiously is indeed worthy to be barred from this most grave ministry, which requires men endowed with prudence.

Since these things are so, and since the aforesaid Authors say these things not of a Monastery or Community but of a Religious Order, or certainly also of a Religious Order, while they themselves acknowledge that they have held a more lax way than others in this matter, the opinion which St. Alphonsus embraced, surely much more lax, concerning one who detracts from some Religious Order from knowledge of confession will with difficulty be admitted. For after he said (loc. cit.) that the seal is violated if the Confessor says that a Religious from such a Community confessed a grave sin to him, or that such sins are committed in that Community, he immediately adds: Not so, as Father Concina says..., if he merely said that he had heard the sin of a Religious of a certain Order, because this is neither a revelation of the seal nor does it redound to the burden of the penitent, since in every Order there are some bad men; hence neither does scandal arise nor is the Religion defamed, unless that Religion were of stricter observance. These things are not only against the opinion of all Theologians, and also of those who seemed to hold a more lax opinion about this, but are supported by reasons which no one will easily admit.

And surely who would seriously say that the penitent is not burdened by this? Grant, indeed, that his person is not betrayed; but will it not be grave for the penitent that from his confession an imprudent Confessor takes occasion to defame the whole Order? Indeed, does not the penitent himself, as a member of the same Community, as Suarez also observed above, participate in the infamy? Indeed, this can deservedly appear so grave that no one can call into doubt that a penitent who prudently believes that his sin will thus be revealed by the Confessor can conceal it in confession; for there is a sufficient cause, namely, the danger of infamy both to himself and to his own Order.

But as for what is added, that neither scandal nor infamy to the Religion arises because in every Order there are some bad men, no one will easily admit it. For that there are some bad men in every Order is customarily based partly upon that general reason that not even the College of the Apostles lacked its Judas, and partly upon light conjectures and uncertain and empty rumors. Moreover, the lighter the conjectures of the multitude are, the more atrocious surely becomes the injury of the Confessor who reveals. And even if some religious family did not have a good odor among the people, would not its infamy be notably increased and confirmed by so authentic a testimony of the Confessor? When this report has become widespread, are not the individual persons of some Order customarily despised among the people as though each had perpetrated that crime? Finally, does not a burden far from slight, does not grave scandal, arise even if only the memory of these things is renewed? Add that, in the concrete, the case of a Religious Order scarcely differs from the case of one monastery. For when the Confessor says that he heard this in confession, the matter is surely circumscribed to some monasteries, at most, from which some Religious could have approached him. Add that certain religious families consist of very few monasteries, and indeed an entire Order sometimes consists of not very many men.

To conclude, perhaps one would not wander completely from the truth who should suspect that the opinion which we have reported is owed to a mere slip of the eyes, whereby those things which could be said by some concerning a Religious man generally were transferred to a Religious of a particular Order. For although Suarez, as is evident from the cited words, scarcely distinguishes the two cases with others and judged that one sins against the seal both if by revelation you injure some particular Religious Order and if, with the particular Order kept silent, you speak generally about a Religious man, nevertheless there were not lacking some (see Candidus, disquisition 24, article 50, doubt 8) who judged that in the latter case the aforesaid inconveniences at least in some measure cease; with these the Author also agrees.

** The VV. oppose forty-two columns (pp. 624-645) to this Note. But, as often elsewhere, or better, if ever elsewhere, here surely one must lament the method to which they devote themselves. Otherwise, so enormous a mass does not need a lengthy reply.

The VV. take the first head of accusation (p. 625) from these words of the Note: Most of them (the Authors) discuss not a Monastery or Community but a Religion or Religious Order. Against these the VV. establish (p. 626): St. Alphonsus, when speaking of a Community, rightly ascribes to the negative opinion the Authors alleged by him for the same.

Reply. First, since St. Alphonsus professes as the truer opinion the one which teaches that in the proposed case the seal is broken, it ought indeed to have happened rather pleasingly even to the VV. that even those whom the holy Doctor thought opposed to him, relying upon the words of Escobar from whom he copied those allegations, were shown to agree with the holy Doctor. But the fervor for accusing these poor Notes never fails to prevail among the VV. Second, whatever may be the case concerning this, it had first to be observed that in the Note other Authors besides those alleged by the holy Doctor are brought forward; then, that the Note does not say that all but that most discuss a Religious Order rather than a Monastery. Therefore, there was no reason for the VV. immediately to think that St. Alphonsus, who at length, as we said, had merely copied his allegations from Escobar, was directly attacked by these things. But third, is it true that all the Authors alleged by St. Alphonsus discuss a Community or Monastery? Let this now be conceded to some extent concerning Escobar and Fagundez; but can the same be said of the other three, namely, Nugno, Henriquez, and Candidus?

And the words of Nugno, in Diana, volume 1, treatise 8, resolution 11, no. 3, are: Some say that he sins by the sin of revelation of the seal who, even if he does not name the person, nevertheless names the PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS ORDER to which such a penitent belonged; and this is a probable opinion; nevertheless, it does not appear so certain that such a Confessor could be punished as a revealer of Confession.* Therefore, does Nugnus discuss a Monastery, or a particular Religious Order? Why do the VV. suppress these things and, contrary to the evidence, establish that thesis and, in addition, charge the Note with false accusation?

The same is to be said of Henriquez, who, in that same place (book 6, or On Penance 3, chapter 21, no. 6), which Escobar, copied by St. Alphonsus, indicates, has thus: To narrate sins, even mortal sins, heard in confession, when knowledge of the person can in no way be reached, is not contrary to the seal; nor is it so if he says that in Seville, or in such a place where it is established that he heard the confessions of many, grave crimes are committed...; or if concerning A CERTAIN RELIGIOUS ORDER IN GENERAL he says that offices are sold, or that some other sin is customarily committed. Where here is there mention of a Monastery?

Vincentius Candidus, however (Disquisitions 24, On Confession, article 10, doubt 8), does indeed speak of a Monastery; but he goes over to the opinion opposite to that which St. Alphonsus himself, after Escobar, attributes to him. Behold his words: I say thirteenthly: But if the Confessor speaks of some place not very extensive, or if concerning some Monastery in which he heard Confessions he says that grave crimes are committed in it, he seems to break the seal of confession; for it can happen that a suspicion which is not slight is conceived concerning some particular person, and that some suffer loss of reputation (thus incorrectly printed iacturae famam for iacturam famae). See St. Antoninus and Coninck. Candidus, namely, uses the same reason which St. Alphonsus also brings forward for his same opinion, saying (book 6, no. 654, doubt 2): The reason is that then the individual members of that Convent suffer harm. And thus the Confessor will likewise violate the seal if he says that such sins are committed in that Convent. Far be it from us to accuse the holy Doctor Alphonsus here, since he merely copied these citations from Escobar; nevertheless, when from those five citations we find three wrongly adduced, how do the VV. (l.c.) write with the greatest confidence that St. Alphonsus, when speaking of a Convent, rightly ascribes to the negative opinion the Authors cited by himself for it?

But this also deservedly displeases us: while the VV., as though about to prove their aforesaid thesis, lead their readers about through eleven columns (pp. 626-631), they in some way reserve its proof and the refutation of the Note for the following article, writing (p. 627): It is not true that most of them (the Authors whom Father Ballerini enumerates) discuss not a Monastery or Convent but a Religious Order. Some speak of an Order; others, however, of an Order and a Monastery; but very many, whom we shall allege in Article 2, speak of a Monastery or Convent alone. Accordingly, anyone reading these things would now believe that in the following second Article the VV. were going to show both that St. Alphonsus rightly ascribes to the negative opinion the Authors cited by himself, and that the Authors enumerated by Ballerini, at least most of them, speak not of a Religious Order but of a Monastery, and indeed incline to the negative opinion. Yet (what otherwise can scarcely seem credible) the reader will finally discover that he is being wonderfully trifled with through these things. For in that entire mass of material in the second article, through seventeen columns, of those three Authors cited by St. Alphonsus only Candidus is mentioned, whom we have already seen above to be falsely alleged. But of the Authors enumerated by Ballerini (wonderful to say!) not even a word in those seventeen columns. And the VV. had indeed brought forward in the first article some texts of Navarrus; but even in these not the least mention occurs either of a Religious Order or of a Monastery or Convent. They bring forward from book 6, chapter 21, no. 6, a text of Henriquez; but Henriquez names a certain religious order, by no means a monastery. What, then, is to be concluded from this? Let it be permissible to conclude thus: This method of disputing concerning theological matters, and of resolving the objections of those who dissent, was never employed by the holy Doctor Alphonsus, nor ever approved by him.

We said above that it must be conceded that Escobar and Fagundez, to whom we shall also add Aversa, denied that one sins against the sacramental seal if someone says that he heard a grave sin in such a monastery, provided, however, that he keeps the person silent. But we added that this must be conceded ONLY TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. Why, then?

The reason, though most briefly, had been indicated in the Note by these words: Only to this extent do some deny that the seal is violated strictly speaking, insofar as such a Confessor can be punished as a revealer of Confession, as Nugnus says; or, as Malderus has it, insofar as he can be punished by the ordinary penalty inflicted against breakers of the seal. Namely, the object of the sacramental seal is not understood in the same way by all theologians, and therefore some seem to restrict it more narrowly, while others extend it more broadly. For there are those who repeatedly employ seal in the sense in which it is designated in ecclesiastical law; and for that reason, with Navarrus (Manual, chapter 8, no. 3), they restrict its object thus: Christ willed that under this obligation there should be included not only mortal and venial sins, but also their circumstances, necessarily or voluntarily confessed, and any other things whatsoever which, although they are not sins, nevertheless are such that, when they are disclosed, it can be disclosed, directly or indirectly, in general or in particular, that he who confessed had confessed that he committed some mortal sin or some particular venial sin, even if it were most slight. Therefore, according to these, the seal is not said to be injured properly and strictly unless from the revelation it can be known that someone, for example, Thomas, had confessed some mortal sin or some particular venial sin. Hence the consequence drawn by Navarrus (l.c., no. 16): The Confessor acted badly, although he is not called a revealer of confession, by speaking thus: In such a place (the name of the place in which he hears confessions being expressed) grave crimes are perpetrated. And in fact the text of the Law (Omnis utriusque) has thus: But let him (the priest) take care altogether lest by word or sign or any other manner whatsoever he in any respect 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 shall have presumed 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 do penance. From these things it is evident that for an injury of the seal of this kind there is required the revelation both of the sin and of the sinner.

Most commonly, however, the object of the seal is understood according as, once the divine institution of the Sacrament and its obligation are posited, the natural law itself requires the prohibition of any revelation whatsoever which can impede confession and render it odious; so that the Confessor can be guilty of violating the seal even if from his revelation it is not known that, for example, Andrew had confessed a mortal sin or some particular venial sin. To the point is Lucius Ferraris (Seal of the Sacrament, no. 22): Under the sacramental seal fall all sins, both mortal and venial, not only of the penitent himself but also of an accomplice. Likewise, the circumstances of sins and natural defects by the revelation of which infamy or some other inconvenience can befall the penitent, and confession thus be rendered odious; for such circumstances, for example, that someone is illegitimate, is of obscure lineage, and things of this kind, cannot be manifested by the Confessor without breaking the sacramental seal. COMMON. And the reason is that the sacramental seal obliges one to conceal everything which can render confession odious; but through the revelation of the aforesaid and similar things confession is rendered odious, since a burden is thus imposed, etc. And that the sacramental seal is employed by the holy Doctor Alphonsus in precisely this sense, and that questions are resolved by him according to this sense, is a matter most certain.

With these things premised, let us return to Escobar. Concerning the Confessor who says, A certain Religious from that Convent confessed a grave sin to me, he writes (book 16, no. 752): That Confessor sins most gravely, branding the community with so great an infamy; nevertheless, he is not a violator of the sacred seal. But St. Alphonsus, on the contrary (book 6, no. 654): Then the seal is violated; the reason is that, although the person is not then revealed, nevertheless, since the revelation issues in the infamy of the whole community, it also redounds to the burden of the penitent.... And therefore from such a revelation confession would be rendered odious to him. Each, therefore, asserts that in the case the Confessor sins gravely. Why, however, does one deny and the other affirm that the Confessor is a violator of the seal, unless because one judges concerning the seal according to ecclesiastical law and the other according to divine law? But the mind of Escobar shines forth better from these things (l.c., no. 750): When the place is not so extensive and the sin or vice is not so public, it does not appear that this can be done without harm to the inhabitants, and sometimes without injury to confession, on account of the occasion which would be furnished for suspicions. I think, nevertheless, that for this reason the penalties of one revealing confession are for the most part not incurred, because the sins of the penitent are not manifested, but those of the town. Thus he. Moreover, in these words you have Escobar expressly employing violation of the seal according to ecclesiastical law, under which penalties are inflicted. Furthermore, you have him admitting that sin is thus committed with injury to confession. But this, namely, is the sin concerning which Suarez, cited in the Note, said: But certainly it is not just any sin, but one against the Sacrament; therefore also against the seal.

But say precisely the same also of Fagundez. For he indeed appears here to prefer the opinion of Navarrus and Henriquez to the opinion of Suarez. But he could not affirm, nor did he affirm, this as regards a Monastery, since neither of them, as we said, makes any mention of a Monastery. He adhered, therefore, to the aforesaid Authors insofar as with them he judged concerning violation of the sacramental seal according to ecclesiastical law. But, no differently from Escobar, he then falls back into the doctrine of Suarez. For (On the Second Precept of the Church, book 6, chapter 4, no. 2), where he speaks of Confessors who injure a community or religious family by naming a religious order in particular or a Monastery, he indeed adds: Ledesma and Suarez think, strictly speaking, that this is a revelation of the seal; but Henriquez and Navarrus, on the contrary, think that, strictly speaking, it is not contrary to the seal. Nevertheless, with the latter he adds that it can sometimes be a mortal sin of scandal, sometimes one having the malice of infamy to the whole community. But Fagundez himself (ibid., chapter 1, no. 2) derived the malice of violating the seal from this: that it is contrary to two virtues, first, against the virtue of justice, insofar as it is contrary to the reputation of one's neighbor; second, against the virtue of religion and the reverence due to the Sacrament, toward which it commits irreverence and inflicts the greatest injury... by rendering (it) burdensome and fearful to men. Now, is irreverence and injury of this kind toward the Sacrament absent whenever, through an imprudent revelation of those things which were heard by a priest in confession, a religious family or Monastery is bespattered with infamy? Does the Sacrament of Penance become any less intolerable and odious? Therefore, there remains one sole reason for reconciling Fagundez with Fagundez, namely that which we have stated: that he understands in the stricter sense that violation of the seal which is the object of ecclesiastical law.

But now let us pass to those things which the VV. oppose against the second part of the Note. They prefix to Article 2 this title (p. 631): The false and rash assertion of Ballerini, that the doctrine of St. Alphonsus is lax and contrary to the opinion of all Theologians, is refuted. And concerning the rashness they add these things (p. 632): Either this assertion of Ballerini is right and to be believed, and then we can scarcely understand why the Holy See, in the solemn declaration, "Nothing is worthy of censure," did not condemn at least this opinion; or the assertion of Father Ballerini is of singular rashness.

n. 666.

Reply. I deny the supposition, namely, that in the Note the opinion of St. Alphonsus is designated as lax. For it presents an altogether different sense when you call an opinion absolutely lax or strict, and when comparatively, and therefore relatively to another, you call an opinion laxer or stricter. Hence it comes about that you can comparatively call some opinion stricter which, nevertheless, you would wrongly call strict. And an example is at hand in the present question, even as regards St. Alphonsus; for it will be permissible to call his doctrine that a Confessor breaks the seal who says that a grave sin was committed in this or that monastery stricter than the opinion of Escobar or Aversa, who deny this; but it is by no means permissible to call it strict. In like manner, we shall most truly call the common opinion concerning the absolution of recidivists laxer than the opinion of St. Alphonsus, as we saw elsewhere; but someone would badly conclude thence that the common opinion is condemned by us as lax. That the opinion of Concina, adopted by St. Alphonsus, is called laxer in the Note in a comparative sense of this kind is also manifest from the fact that other Authors are there presented admitting that in this matter they held a laxer course than others. For someone would argue entirely badly that those Authors therefore admit that they held lax doctrine. Thus the VV. impose this most grave charge with less consideration, that there the opinion of St. Alphonsus is rashly branded with a censure contrary to the declaration of the Apostolic See to the Theologians: Nothing is worthy of censure.

Now the VV. stuff seventeen columns (pp. 631-640) with the texts of authors in order to show that it is falsely affirmed that the doctrine of theologians is contrary to the opinion of Concina adopted by St. Alphonsus, namely, that if a Confessor says that he heard in confession a sin of a Religious of a certain Order, the seal is not broken.

For the sake of clarity and brevity, let us divide this great crowd of Authors into various classes. First, therefore, let seven come forward: Mendo, Mazzotta, Billuart, Leonard Jansen, Gotti, Reuter, and Cuniliati. Their texts, brought forward by the VV., merely say with St. Alphonsus that the seal is violated if the Confessor says that a Religious from such a Convent confessed a grave sin to him. Let the reply be brief: I concede the antecedent; I deny the consequence. For the VV. wish to argue thus: These Authors condemn it if the sin of a Religious from such a convent is revealed; therefore, they do not condemn it if the sin of a Religious from such an Order is revealed. Wrongly indeed. The one true conclusion could at most be this: Therefore, they do not touch upon the other question. But not even this is altogether true. For the reasons which are brought forward for the former case, namely, the burden of the penitent, the odium of confession, the consequent infamy, and scandal, have place also in the latter case. Therefore, tacitly but implicitly, they comprehend the other case also.

Let thirteen others follow: Coninck, Bonacina, Laymann, Palaus, Trullench, Tamburini, Sporer, the Salmanticenses, Gotti, Reuter, Struggl, Cuniliati, and Henricus a S. Ignatio. Their texts, transcribed by the VV., hold that a Confessor who says that grave sins are committed in such a place is to be condemned if the place is not very extensive; otherwise, if the place is extensive, for example, a large city. Reply. I concede the antecedent; I deny the consequence and the parity. For, as is evident, the reason of burden, scandal, and infamy consequent upon a revelation of this kind is not equal in both cases. For can Religious of a certain Order bear this revelation with as tranquil a mind as the citizens of a certain large City? Indeed, the VV. themselves (p. 645) imagine (as we shall see) that St. Alphonsus excuses a Confessor speaking thus concerning a large civil community, but does not excuse one speaking thus concerning a Religious Order, however large, because, namely (they say), a religious Community is more easily defamed and suffers harm.

There follow eight, namely, Valentia, Herincx, Lopez, Jansen, Henricus a S. Ignatio, Antonius Fernandez, Ioannes Corradus, and Aversa, whose texts, as the VV. allege them, merely hold that the sacramental seal is not violated if the person is in no way indicated, although a sin heard in confession is revealed. This assertion proves too much in itself. St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 654) says: More truly, the Confessor who says that a Religious from such a convent confessed a grave sin to him breaks the seal. Do you see the seal violated although the person is not revealed? And again (ibid.), to the question, Does a Confessor violate the seal if he asserts that grave crimes are perpetrated in some place, which he himself heard in confession? the same holy Doctor replies: The most common and by far more probable opinion teaches that if the town is small (suppose it consists of about fewer than three thousand people), then the seal is violated. The reason is that, ALTHOUGH THE PERSON IS NOT THEN REVEALED, nevertheless, since the revelation issues in 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 a revelation confession would be rendered odious to him. It is otherwise, however, if the town is large and the crimes are public. Therefore the aforesaid assertion is true if taken positively, by saying: A Confessor who reveals even the person violates the seal; but by no means if taken negatively, by saying: The seal is never broken if the person also is not revealed. Let the reply, therefore, be: I distinguish the antecedent. If no other cause is added on account of which the seal is broken, let it pass; otherwise, I deny it. But in our case, although the person is not then revealed (as St. Alphonsus teaches), nevertheless, since the revelation issues in 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 a revelation confession would be rendered odious to him. Therefore, I deny the consequence.

Four remain, namely, Candidus, Escobar, Stoz, and Roncaglia. But enough has already been said above concerning Candidus and Escobar. Stoz is brought forward because (Tribunal of Penance, part 2, no. 227), unless the offenses are public and notorious, or unless the community is such and so large that all can prudently judge it not to lack weeds of this kind, he does not excuse from the crime of unjustly defaming the community, nor from a sin against charity, indeed not even from violation of the seal on account of the danger lest the persons also become known, especially if the place or body of Regulars... is not extensive and numerous. Hence the VV. seem to wish to conclude that all these inconveniences are absent if the body of Regulars is extensive and numerous. Reply. I distinguish. That Stoz also intermingles a body of Regulars which is not extensive can be admitted as regards the danger of revealing the person: let it pass. That it can also be understood as regards the injury of defaming and, in addition, as regards rendering confession odious: I deny it. For the same Stoz adds with Dicastillo that this is also contrary to the seal for this reason, that it plainly renders confession odious. Nor will the VV. deny that confession would become odious even to Regulars, indeed much more to Regulars than to others, if they knew or suspected that from their sacramental confession the Confessor would take occasion to defame their entire Order. Finally, concerning Roncaglia, whose assertion appears to be joined with the assertion of Daniel Concina, there is no need to add anything to those things which were said concerning this opinion in the Note.

Let us conclude, therefore, that that entire jumble of texts of so many Authors, which the VV. gathered with immense labor, contributes absolutely nothing to their purpose, namely, that they confirm the assertion of Concina by the authority of the schools.

Now to the third Article (pp. 640-643), whose title is: Against the arguments brought forward in the Note, the doctrine of St. Alphonsus is clearly expounded. To which it is surely easy to reply: Could the doctrine of St. Alphonsus have been expounded more clearly than by citing his words with the greatest exactness? Yet in the Note the opinion of the holy Doctor was expounded integrally, to the letter. Nevertheless, the exposition added by the VV. was not useless, inasmuch as it makes sufficiently evident that there was, in the end, no cause for them to attack our Note with so much heat.

Thus, after transcribing one or another text of Concina, they observe first (p. 641): The sole question treated here is whether the Confessor breaks the seal, but not whether he speaks licitly. Reply. The special question here concerns the revelation of a sin which turns to the burden of the penitent, to the odium of confession, and to the infamy of a religious community. But according to St. Alphonsus the seal is broken by this revelation, as is evident from his doctrine brought forward above. Therefore, a discussion of some other illicit speech, such as, for example, a lie, is not to be intermingled here.

They add secondly: St. Alphonsus, no differently from Concina, supposes a large Religious Order. Reply 1. The words of the holy Doctor Alphonsus, which are exactly transcribed in the Note, present no distinction between a large and a non-large Religious Order. 2. It was already observed in the Note that, in the concrete, the case of a Religious Order scarcely differs from the case of one monastery; for when the Confessor says that he heard this in confession, the matter is certainly circumscribed to a few monasteries (at most) from which some Religious could have come to him, unless the extraordinary hypothesis is imagined of a Confessor who has traveled through the most remote lands. But the cited text does not restrict the assertion of St. Alphonsus to this extraordinary hypothesis. 3. Even in this extraordinary hypothesis, the burden of the penitent and the odium of his confession are not absent, from which he may suspect that, on account of it, his confreres must be affected with confusion, shame, and sorrow because of the infamy of the Order.

And indeed, the VV. themselves finally confirm our reply when they write (pp. 641-642, no. 30): If in some diocese or province there exist one or more Monasteries, the Confessor will not be able, with the seal preserved, to name this Religious Order, because certainly some would suspect one or another Monastery of the same Religious Order. The same is to be said if Monasteries do not exist there, but Religious from other Convents are present in this province or diocese, at least while passing through. Concerning these things let it be permissible to observe two points. The first is that St. Alphonsus does not exclude these cases from his general affirmation. Therefore, the VV. expound their own opinion, not the opinion of St. Alphonsus. The second is that the cause of the violated seal is reduced by them solely to the inconvenience of suspicion concerning some Monastery or some Religious passing through. But even according to the doctrine of St. Alphonsus, it is not necessary that such suspicion arise from the revelation of the Confessor, since for this the infamy of the community, the odium of confession, and the burden of the penitent suffice, as has already been said more than once.

And again, the things which in the Note are objected to the opinion of Concina, admitted by St. Alphonsus, are confirmed by the VV. when they themselves (p. 642, no. 4) admit that, in naming the Religious Order, the Confessor will rarely avoid breaking the seal unless it is established that he exercised the office of Confessor in various lands and dioceses, and he himself expresses this circumstance. Nevertheless, they urge this upon us less suitably, both because the assertion of St. Alphonsus embraces all Confessors, whether they exercised the office of Confessor in various lands or in one land or diocese, and because here again the VV. derive violation of the seal merely from the danger of revealing the penitent. But this supposition, as we have said more than once, is false.

The VV. add (ibid., no. 5) that the holy Doctor excepts: Unless that Religious Order were of stricter observance. Therefore (the VV. say), with the seal preserved, a Confessor can name only such a Religious Order in which observance is notoriously relaxed. Reply. The words of the holy Doctor do not present this sense, but he says: Nor does it redound to the burden of the penitent, since in every Order there are some bad men; whence neither does scandal arise nor is the Religious Order defamed, unless that Religious Order were of stricter observance. Therefore, according to the holy Doctor, the reason why the seal is not violated is this: because in every Order there are some bad men. To this assertion, nevertheless, he places this limit: Unless that Religious Order were of stricter observance; which exception in that context has force thus: Unless the observance is such that in that Order it is not readily supposed that there are some bad men. Moreover, as was already observed in the Note, it is false that even in that hypothesis both the burden of the penitent and the other inconveniences on account of which St. Alphonsus himself affirms that the seal is broken are absent. And surely, does not the holy Doctor himself (book 6, no. 654, doubt 1), in order that violation of the seal be avoided in the case, require in addition that the crimes be public?

Finally, the VV. (ibid., no. 6) observe that neither Concina nor St. Alphonsus speaks of poisonings, adulteries, or other grave crimes, but simply of a sin. First, Concina, whose words the VV. also bring forward, has thus there: Nor is the Order in any way defamed from the fact that it is known... that someone (a Religious) IS CRIMINAL. Therefore, if the sense of St. Alphonsus there is indeed to be measured from the words of Concina, we shall also interpret the holy Doctor thus, that he speaks of crimes or of a criminal Religious. Second, the words of St. Alphonsus, If (the Confessor) were only to say that he heard the sin of a Religious of a certain Order, are most general and embrace sins of every genus and species.

And let these things suffice to make it evident that through these expositions of the VV. nothing is detracted from the force of the difficulties which in the Note were objected to the opinion of the holy Doctor.

It will be useful here to note certain things concerning those which the VV. (p. 645) have in the Conclusion of the Question.

Thus they write: Although (St. Alphonsus) excuses a Confessor speaking concerning a large civil Community, nevertheless he does not excuse one speaking concerning a Religious Order, however large, because he has a just and prudent reason for the distinction between the two Communities, insofar as a religious Community is more easily defamed and suffers harm. Reply. May the Most Illustrious and Most Religious VV. pardon us; but these things are shown to be evidently false from the words of St. Alphonsus, who plainly has the opposite.

For, giving the reason why a Confessor of this kind does not violate the seal, he writes: Because this is neither a revelation of the seal nor DOES IT REDOUND TO THE BURDEN OF THE PENITENT, since in every Order there are some bad men; whence NEITHER DOES SCANDAL ARISE NOR IS THE RELIGIOUS ORDER DEFAMED. How, therefore, do the VV. write that St. Alphonsus does not excuse this Confessor because the Religious Order is defamed, while St. Alphonsus says in explicit words that this Confessor is excused because the Religious Order is not defamed?

The VV. add (ibid.): Nevertheless (St. Alphonsus) deservedly admits the opinion of Concina, that a Confessor who speaks concerning the sin of only one Religious, naming the Religious Order, does not break the seal, provided that the Religious Order is large and notoriously relaxed, and that the sins are such as customarily occur among the relaxed and have notoriously occurred in this (Religious Order), and likewise that every danger of suspicion concerning some monastery in particular is absent. Reply. These things indeed are most opportune to be appended in a Note to this passage of the holy Doctor when the new Edition of the Work which the VV. are preparing comes forth; for the VV. themselves now admit that without these supports the bare and simple assertion of the holy Doctor of itself conduces to breaking the seal. But it is one thing that it is necessary to fortify the assertion of the holy Doctor with these supports, and another that the assertion can be admitted of itself, as it stands.

Finally, the VV. (ibid.) conclude that the doctrine of St. Alphonsus in this matter, and particularly the opinion just expounded, which the holy Doctor judges reasonable and Father Ballerini most sharply attacks, is not only not lax, but rather more rigorous than that which very many Doctors, even the most rigorous, such as Alexander Natalis and Henricus a S. Ignatio, hold. Reply.

Let it pass that here also, in passing, the VV. renew the accusation, indeed less justly, as we have already seen, as though in the Note the opinion of the holy Doctor were marked as lax. As regards what is now at issue, it certainly does not appear why either the opinion of Alexander Natalis or that of Henricus a S. Ignatio concerning the present question is said by them to be laxer than the opinion of Concina and St. Alphonsus, if indeed this opinion of the holy Doctor is considered as it is expressed by him and inspected in itself, and not clothed with those appendages with which the VV. have adorned it from every side. Whatever may be the case concerning this, since the VV. ascribe to these two Authors, whom they themselves here call the most rigorous, that they hold doctrine laxer than the opinion of St. Alphonsus, which someone might call exceedingly benign, and almost more benign than is right, considering, namely, so many supports and appendages with which they themselves judged it necessary to adorn, sustain, and fortify it; truly, they now have an example of that which elsewhere (p. 659, in the Note) they ask of us, namely, of Authors who are commonly held to be more rigorous and who, otherwise, not rarely inclined to those laxities which no one among the most benign ever admitted. And, for the rest, the VV. will indeed be able to see very many examples of this kind among the Authors where they dissolve the calumny cast upon the benign opinion, as St. Alphonsus himself calls it, concerning the use of a probable opinion, as though this were a wellspring of laxities. For there they place before the eyes of their more rigorous adversaries laxities found among those writers who are customarily vaunted as followers of the more rigorous opinion. But it is not part of the present purpose to linger over these things.

n. 666.

He who, after confession, looks upon the penitent with a stern eye, does not address 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 thinking about them at that moment, and esteems him less than before.

Questions. - QUESTION 1. Can a Confessor deny Holy Communion to a penitent to whom he previously denied absolution, if the latter approaches the sacred table?

Reply. No, even if he asks secretly, because the Confessor cannot use knowledge from confession to act externally against the penitent ⁷. - St. Ligorius, no. 658, and others, against some.

⁷ De Lugo adds an exception (disputation 23, no. 126) if he is a public sinner. The Confessor could nevertheless (he says) repel a prostitute or a public usurer from the Eucharist in public by reason of knowledge which he has outside confession concerning that public sin. But if he says, "Yet I confessed to you," he can reply, "Nevertheless, your amendment must be evident to the Church through public satisfaction, which is not yet evident."

QUESTION 2. Does he break the seal who says that such a vice reigns in a city or town, or that grave crimes are committed there?

Reply. I distinguish. Yes, if the place is sufficiently small, for example, if it consists of approximately fewer than three thousand persons. Otherwise, if the town is large and public crimes are frequently perpetrated there. - St. Ligorius, no. 654, and others most commonly.

n. 668.

- QUESTION 3. Can preachers use knowledge from confession to speak concerning those things of which they would not have thought unless they had heard confessions?

n. 668.

Reply. Yes, provided danger of revelation and burden to the penitents are excluded. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, no. 654. - Elbel, no. 525.

n. 668.

The reason is: first, because it can be a burden to no one that priests sometimes direct themselves in sermons from knowledge of confession, provided that burden is not present here and now. Therefore, they can inveigh generally against vices which secretly prevail. Second, because this would be an excessively grave burden for the Confessor; for he would always fear lest in preaching he use knowledge from confession. Nevertheless, let the Confessor beware lest he speak publicly concerning the altogether particular sins of one or another penitent, especially if he gives a sermon before some small community, for example, in a monastery of Nuns, etc.; because then a burden could easily be introduced. - Elbel, ibid.

n. 669.

- QUESTION 4. Can a Priest who knows from confession that ambushes are being prepared for him flee, or in some other manner forestall the harm?

n. 669.

Reply 1. Yes, if by such precaution the sin accused is in no way manifested to others, nor is any burden brought upon the penitent. - Thus St. Ligorius, no. 659. - De Lugo, disputation 23, no. 108, etc.

n. 669.

Reply 2. No, if he cannot flee without in some manner manifesting that some sin was accused by the penitent. The reason is that that flight would be an indirect revelation of the confessed sin; and although the Confessor were to feign flight under some pretext, he would nevertheless always furnish a reasonable suspicion of the sin declared. - St. Ligorius, ibid., and others. De Lugo, disputation 23, no. 110, nevertheless warns that experience shows that even an indirect revelation is never necessary for escaping those dangers, since they can be met either with the permission of the penitent or by other means without breaking the seal.

- QUESTION 5. Can Superiors use knowledge from confession for external government, if it in no way appears that they direct themselves from that knowledge?

Reply. ALTOGETHER no, with St. Ligorius, no. 656, and others commonly, against some older Theologians who defended the affirmative opinion. - The reason is that this would evidently turn to the burden of penitents; and those who knew that such a doctrine was commonly taught could be withdrawn from confession.

This is also established from various Decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, especially the Decree of Clement VIII of May 26, 1594, for Regulars, in which it is said: Both the Superiors existing at the time and the Confessors who afterward shall have been promoted to the rank of superiority are to take THE GREATEST CARE lest they use for external government that knowledge which they had in confession concerning the sins of others. In St. Ligorius, no. 656. Although this Decree was issued for Regulars, it must be extended to all Superiors, since the same reason which urges for Regulars also has force for seculars.

This is also established from a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition issued by the authority of Innocent XI in the year 1682, by which the following proposition was proscribed: It is licit to use knowledge acquired from confession, provided that this be done without direct or indirect revelation and 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 no account. The Pontiff adds that Confessors can in no way use such a doctrine, even with any revelation whatsoever excluded.

n. 671.

- QUESTION 6. Can a Confessor at least sometimes use knowledge from confession, or when can he do so? Reply. According to all Theologians, he can do so in the following cases: first, to pray for the penitent, or to act more benignly toward him; second, to consult books or wise men, prudently, nevertheless, with danger of revelation excluded; third, to direct himself through experience acquired from confessions, for example, to temper rigor, and to direct himself from the confession of one in prudently questioning or instructing others, giving no suspicion of the prior confession; fourth, to reform his own morals, to correct his own defects, or to discharge his office better, for example, to cast off sloth, to watch over subjects more vigilantly, with suspicion of revelation excluded, etc.; because everyone is bound to correct his defects as soon as he adverts to them; nor can any penitent reasonably be offended that the Confessor changes his life for the better on account of things heard in confession. - St. Ligorius, no. 637.

n. 671.

Conclusion. In a matter so grave and so dangerous, the Confessor must be exceedingly cautious lest he utter any word, or do or intimate anything, whence there can follow even the least odium of the Sacrament, burden of the penitent, offense or scandal of any others whatsoever. Let him therefore be prudent and discreet not only in speech but in his whole manner of acting. Let him pray frequently with the Psalmist (Psalm 140, verse 3): Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth, and a door round about my lips; or with the Wise Man (Wisdom 9:4): Give me wisdom, that sitteth by thy throne.

n. 671.

End of the Treatise on Penance.

Tanquerey

Adolphe Tanquerey, S.S. — 7 passages

Vol. I, Matrimony, and Holy Orders, On Penance (Volume I), Moral Part — Chapter II: On the Confessor

n. 509.

(D) On Violation of the Seal

Principle: The seal is violated as often as things contained under the seal are manifested with probable danger of making known the person who accused them, or as often as someone uses knowledge had from confession with burden to the penitent, or with danger of rendering confession odious. It is certain.

Explanation. The seal is wounded in two ways: directly, when that which is matter of the seal is expressly revealed and at the same time the person who did it is designated; it is not necessary that the person be known to the hearers, provided that he is sufficiently determined; nor is it necessary that the hearers know that the priest is speaking about things heard in confession, but it suffices that in reality he so speak from sacramental knowledge. - It is violated indirectly by saying, or doing, or omitting something from which either the object of the seal can be known, even probably, or confession can be rendered odious.

Direct revelation of the seal is unheard of in our days. Yet it cannot be said that a secret of this kind has never been directly violated; for it is reported sometimes, although very rarely, that the seal also was directly broken;¹ but so few facts of this kind are narrated, even concerning wicked priests, that it can deservedly be said that not without a special providence of God is the sacramental seal so faithfully kept.

¹ One of these facts is related in the Life of St. Thomas of Villanova, ap. Acta Sanctorum, t. XLV, p. 894-896. Namely, a certain murderer confessed his crime to an unknown priest, who in fact was the brother of the one killed; the confessor, after questions about the name of the murderer and the circumstances of the crime, manifested all these things to another lay brother, so that he might make the same things known to the judges. Wherefore the murderer was condemned to death; but when before execution he refused to confess his sins, Thomas of Villanova approached him, and learned from him that he refused to confess because he had been condemned from violation of the seal. After the matter had been investigated more maturely, the confessor confessed his crime and was condemned to perpetual prison, while the murderer was freed, because the judges acknowledged that no guilty person could be proved from the violated sacramental seal.

Direct violation of the seal admits no smallness of matter; for even direct manifestation of venial sins would be very odious to penitents and would keep them from the sacrament. - But indirect violation sometimes admits smallness of matter, namely when the burden arising from it is very slight. But confessors ought to be wholly cautious, since even the indirect manifestation of some defect of a penitent easily brings a great burden or scandal.¹

¹ From the Instruction of the Holy Office, June 9, 1915, when something is narrated positively and concretely as heard in confession, it must always be judged that from this confession is rendered odious in the mind of the hearers. Therefore confessors are strictly forbidden to do this, not even in passing, neither directly nor indirectly in their public or private discourses. Let Ordinaries gravely warn transgressors, strike recidivists with suitable penalties, and denounce them to the Holy Office.

n. 510.

On the Various Ways of Violating the Seal Indirectly. The seal is wounded indirectly by words and deeds: -

By words:

(a) If the confessor, in narrating some fact, relates such circumstances that the penitent can probably be known; for example, the first one who confessed to me committed adultery; - or if to a public fact known outside confession there is added some circumstance known by confession alone; - or, if after hearing a few confessions, he says that he heard such a grave sin; for from this each penitent incurs some suspicion.

(b) If it is said that such a penitent was not absolved, or only after some trial: for from this it is inferred that his sins were grave.

(d) If one penitent is praised before others for purity of conscience, so that suspicion is cast upon the others; but not if he is praised simply, without any comparison, although it is better to say nothing in species about qualities of penitents known by confession alone.

(e) If the penitent is rebuked or questioned in a loud voice, or if the confessor, after hearing a sin, groans and exclaims; from which it can be understood that the penitent has sinned gravely.

n. 511.

(f) If two confessors of the same penitent converse together about his sins, without special permission; or, if the confessor speaks about these things with others who know these sins from elsewhere, for example, with parents, or with the other spouse; indeed, if with the penitent himself outside confession he speaks, without his permission, about things heard in confession; but not if the penitent himself begins to speak about his confession, because then he implicitly gives permission to speak.

(g) If a depraved habit, known by confession, is revealed as prevailing in some congregation, or monastery, or parish, unless in this last case the village is very large (containing more than 3000 inhabitants); for the infamy of this sin redounds upon the whole community; thus, for example, if it is said of some monastery: sacrileges are committed there; or of a small town: adultery, sodomy, fornication, etc., prevail here. - Hence a preacher who addresses a small community of nuns or religious ought not to describe some particular sin accused by one or another of the members, lest the penitents think that this is done because of the sin which they declared; yet he can describe in a general way the defects customarily committed in all monasteries.

(h) A pastor who makes known to missionaries or outside priests the principal vices prevailing in the community, so that they may correct them, does not violate the seal, if the place is large and the vices sufficiently common; but, if from knowledge of confession he were to say that incest, or another vice, prevails in a few families, he would wound the seal.

n. 512.

The seal is violated by deeds:

(a) If someone, after hearing a confession, changes his manner of acting toward the penitent, by addressing him with harsher words, or by depriving him of his former benevolence; for example, if he no longer entrusts the keys of the chest to a servant whom from confession he has found unfaithful;¹ or even changes his manner of acting with regard to others, for example, by rebuking or expelling the accomplices of the penitent.

¹ It is disputed whether in this case the confessor can in the confession itself command the servant to return the keys spontaneously; Elbel affirms (n. 514), Lugo denies (n. 123), because such a command would bring a burden upon the penitent, and we think this opinion more probable.

(b) "Both superiors existing for the time, and confessors who afterward have been appointed superiors, can in no way use for external governance the knowledge which they have had concerning sins in confession" (Code, can. 890, § 2²), and deservedly, since such a manner of acting of itself tends to deter penitents from perfect sincerity.

² These words are taken from the decree of Clement VIII (May 26, 1593) issued for Regular Superiors. (Among the Constitutions of Urban VIII ap. Bullarium Magnum, t. IV, p. 68). On November 18, 1682, the Holy Inquisition extended this principle to all confessors, by condemning this proposition: "It is lawful to use knowledge acquired from confession, provided it is done without direct or indirect revelation and burden to the penitent, unless some other much greater burden would follow from non-use, in comparison with which the former is deservedly condemned. Then there was added the explanation or limitation that it is to be understood of the use of knowledge acquired from confession with burden to the penitent, with any revelation excluded, and in a case in which a much greater burden of the same penitent would follow from non-use." - It was established that "the said proposition, insofar as it admits the use of knowledge with burden to the penitent, is to be wholly prohibited, even with the said explanation or limitation." (Ap. Denzing., n. 1087.)

Therefore it is not lawful to use this knowledge to remove an unworthy person from office, to deny him a vote, to shut the penitent in a room lest he go out to sin, to dismiss a servant, etc.

Yet the confessor can use the knowledge of confession when no danger of revelation is feared, and no burden for the penitent or for others: for the good of the penitent himself, namely by praying more fervently for him, or by acting more kindly with him, because this cannot be displeasing to the penitent; for the good of others, by using experience acquired for a more prudent administration of the sacrament, whether with regard to questions to be asked, or with regard to counsels to be given; or for preaching in a more practical way, provided, however, that nothing be said which renders confession odious; for his own amendment, by reforming his own morals, by performing his offices more diligently, and by fleeing occasions of sin more watchfully.

n. 513.

(c) It is not lawful to refuse to hear the confession of a penitent who, from a previous confession, is known to be indisposed, for example, because he does not wish to leave a proximate and free occasion of sin: for this is the greatest burden to the penitent; yet at the beginning of the confession he can dismiss him, if he finds him to be the same indisposed person, although it is better to dispose him, if this can be done.

(d) A priest who from confession alone knows that ambushes are being prepared for him, or that the wine which he is about to use for Mass has been infected with poison, cannot flee or omit Mass, if from this others could conjecture that the seal is being violated in this way, or if a burden is brought upon the penitent himself; but if neither of these things is verified, he can flee or abstain from Mass. Besides, in every case the confessor, within the sacred tribunal, can ask permission to use this knowledge for preserving his life; but if the penitent refuses permission, the confessor must expose his life rather than violate the seal. Nevertheless, if it were certainly established that the penitent revealed these ambushes in the sacred tribunal for precisely this end, that the confessor could not flee, a confession of this kind is not sacramental, and therefore does not oblige to the seal.

n. 514.

Corollaries: (a) on giving or denying a confession certificate. In certain regions the confession certificate is in use, that is, written testimony concerning a confession made on such a day by such a person; it is given especially to those who wish to make the paschal Communion or to celebrate marriage, and it is written thus: "I heard such a one in confession, on the day¹ ..."; but nothing must be said about absolution given or denied.

¹ Statuts Synodaux de Paris, 1902, n. 423.

Now a certificate of this kind can be granted to all those who make a sacramental confession, whether they are absolved or not; hence it cannot be denied to an indisposed penitent who asks it outside confession: for if it were denied, the confessor would use the knowledge of confession with burden to the penitent. Nor likewise can it be denied to an indisposed person asking within the tribunal, when the penitent is in those circumstances in which it is customarily given, because this would be implicitly to say that the penitent was not duly confessed; outside these circumstances, it can be denied or granted, according to the laws of prudence; today it is rarely expedient to deny it, as often as the penitent has seriously accused at least one sin, lest from such denial he be kept away from the sacraments for a long time.

But if the penitent makes only a simulated and mocking confession, or if he asks for a certificate without confessing any sin, generally the certificate must be denied; for on the one hand the seal is not wounded, since it arises only from sacramental confession, and on the other hand, by handing over the certificate the confessor in some way cooperates in the unworthy reception of Matrimony or the Eucharist. - I said generally, because if from denial of the certificate, where this is required for marriage, scandals were prudently feared, a certificate could be given in which it is declared that such a one approached the sacred tribunal on such a day.

n. 515.

(b) If the confessor in a difficult case needs counsel, he can have recourse to a theologian to whom the penitent is unknown, or, if this cannot be done, present the case in such a way that danger of revelation is absent, for example, by setting forth the case as fictitious and therefore omitting circumstances from which the penitent could be known. Permission can also be sought from the penitent for taking counsel from another confessor concerning a matter pertaining to confession; but if this is denied, and at the same time there is danger of revelation, the confessor, after imploring divine light, should consult approved authors and solve the difficulty in the best way he can.

Note. (c) That the seal may be better kept, confessors ought to avoid mixing into conversations remarks about things heard in confession; this is enjoined in certain diocesan Statutes; thus in the Synod of Mechlin: "We strictly enjoin confessors that in common conversations they never intermix words about things heard in confession, nor report the scruples, internal vexations, and foolish things of those confessing, even with the penitent's name kept silent, under the pretext that matters of this kind are not sins."²

² The Second Synod of Trenton made this decree its own, n. 110. Cf. Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 290.

Koch–Preuss

Antony Koch; adapted and edited by Arthur Preuss — 5 passages

Vol. II, Pt. II, Ch. II, Sect. 5, Article 5: The Seal of Confession

n. ¶17.

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.

n. ¶18.

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.

n. ¶19.

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."

n. ¶20.

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.

n. ¶21.

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.

Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis

Dominic M. Prümmer, O.P. — 1 passage

Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. V, Ch. III, Art. II, § 3, 2. On the Obligation of the Seal of Confession

n. 447.

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

Konings, Theologia Moralis

Anthony Konings, C.SS.R. — 4 passages

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT …, PART THIRD: ON THE MINISTE…, Ch. II, Art. II, § II. On the Seal of Confession

n. ¶6.

Point IV. On the Various Modes of Violating the Seal.

n. ¶1497.

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.

n. ¶1498.

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.

n. ¶1499.

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.

Merkelbach, Pastoral Questions

Benedict H. Merkelbach, O.P. — 18 passages

Ch. IV, Question Third: Concerning…, Article I: Concerning the Obligation of the Sacramental Seal

n. ¶3752.

VI. One violation of the seal is direct or immediate, another indirect or mediate. Direct violation is done by expressly revealing that which is matter of the seal and at the same time sufficiently designating the person who did it. Yet for this it is not necessary either a) that the person be known to the hearers, provided that he is sufficiently determined or designated, or b) that the hearers know that the priest is speaking about things heard in confession; but it suffices that in reality he speaks thus. Thus, for example: Titius confessed mortal sins, or committed homicide - Peter was not absolved - the prefect of such a city committed adultery - the first whom I heard today confessed adultery, if the hearers can know him. This is a mortal sin from its whole genus, which admits no lightness of matter: for the direct manifestation even of venial sins is very odious to penitents and would drive them away from the sacrament; therefore by direct injury of the seal in light matter, grave injury is done to the sacrament.

n. ¶3753.

Indirect violation is done by saying or doing or omitting something from which others can know or suspect that which is the object of the seal, with probable danger of making known or suspected the person who did it. It is not so much a formal violation of the seal as danger of violation, namely, of knowing at once the sin and the sinner. For this it is not required that the hearers know the person or suspect, but that suspicion can prudently be made. This is a mortal sin from its own genus, which nevertheless sometimes admits lightness of matter, namely, when the danger of knowing the matter of the seal and rendering the sacrament odious is slight and very remote.

n. ¶3754.

VII. The indirect modes of violating the seal, whether by words or by deeds, are various according to the various adjuncts. We report some of them from approved authors.

n. ¶3755.

A. By words: 1) If the confessor, in narrating some fact from confession, mentions such circumstances that the penitent can easily be known from them. The example is most known of the pastor who, after twenty-five years of priesthood, narrates in company that the first penitent confessed adultery to him; a little later a man enters and narrates to all the hearers: I was your first penitent.

n. ¶3756.

If, after hearing the confessions of a few, he says that he heard such a grave sin, although he conceals the person, provided that the penitents can be known by those to whom the sin is narrated: for each one from that revelation suffers some suspicion against himself.

n. ¶3757.

If, from those things which he knew only by confession, he says concerning a community (college, convent, village, town, region, religious order) a relatively graver sin, or relatively many more, or altogether special vices, besides those which are known to be committed there, even with every danger of suspicion concerning determinate persons in particular excluded: for suspicion nevertheless is concerning individuals, or at least lower estimation or infamy and disgrace redounds upon the whole community, and therefore upon the penitents insofar as they are members of the community; and the detriment is the graver because the matter is confirmed by the authentic testimony of the confessor.

n. ¶3758.

Therefore he who says that in such a convent he heard a grave sin, or that in such a religious order grave sins are committed, which he knows from confession alone; and he who asserts that in a small place (of about 3,000 persons, or fewer) an occult vice dominates, or venereal disease, or such grave crimes are perpetrated, which he knows from confession, for example, many sacrileges or thefts; and he who concerning a somewhat larger place narrates an infamous sin or enormous crime, such as incest or sodomy; - not however if he narrated grave things only concerning religious in general, or concerning an order, if it were more numerous and notoriously relaxed, or even said greater things concerning great cities, in which such things are also committed.

n. ¶3759.

If he addresses or rebukes a penitent with so loud a voice that those standing by understand from his responses, or from the admonitions, what the penitent has confessed, or that he has sinned gravely.

n. ¶3760.

If not from the very beginning, but in the progress of confession, he says to a deaf penitent in a loud voice: come back, or something similar.

n. ¶3761.

If he says that someone confessed to him as an extraordinary confessor or as one endowed with greater faculties, or approached him secretly, or that he denied absolution to such a one, or (unless the custom somewhere were general) had not yet absolved him, or only after a trial, or had sent him away for a time, or had not yet received his completed confession, or had imposed a grave penance on him; for from this it is inferred that a grave crime was present.

n. ¶3762.

If, by comparing several penitents, either explicitly or implicitly (as brothers or fellow-students), he praises one or two, for example, concerning purity of conscience or concerning the fact that he brings only venial sins, but says nothing concerning the others: for then rather often he will suggest suspicion of some matter of moment, or mortal sin, or indisposition.

n. ¶3763.

If he admonishes parents or superiors of the penitent that they watch especially in those circumstances, for example, in such a place or time.

n. ¶3764.

If he speaks with another confessor concerning a sin which the penitent confessed to each.

n. ¶3765.

B. By deeds: 1) If the confessor sitting in the confessional rises and, in a mode which those standing by can observe, reads the list of reserved cases.

n. ¶3766.

If by visible gesture, groan, or exclamation he manifests wonder or sadness.

n. ¶3767.

If, after hearing confession, he immediately departs from the church, not at all solicitous concerning the communion of the penitent, which otherwise would be likely.

n. ¶3768.

If he denies a certificate of confession to a penitent who asks before others, or in circumstances in which it is customarily granted to all; concerning which see in the following article.

n. ¶3769.

If, after hearing confession, he changes his mode of acting toward the penitent, where this is perceived by others who from it could suspect that some determinate or graver sin had been declared; concerning which again in the following article.

Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis

Benedict Henry Merkelbach, O.P. — 21 passages

Vol. III, Special Moral Theology: On…, Treatise: On Penance, Fourth Part: On the Minist…, Question Three: On the Dut…, Article III: On the Duties after the Act of Confession

626. Violation of the seal is one kind direct or immediate, another indirect or mediate.

Direct violation is done by expressly revealing that which is the matter of the seal and at the same time sufficiently designating the person who did it.

For this, however, it is not necessary, either a) that the person be known to the hearers, provided he is sufficiently determined or designated, or b) that the hearers know that the priest is speaking about things heard in confession; but it suffices that in reality he speaks thus. Thus, e.g., Titius confessed mortal sins, or committed homicide, - Peter has not been absolved, - the prefect of such a city committed adultery, - the first whom I heard today confessed adultery, if the hearers can know him. This is a mortal sin from its whole genus, which admits no lightness of matter; for the direct manifestation even of venial sins is very odious to penitents and would deter them from the sacrament; therefore by direct injury of the seal in light matter, grave injury is done to the sacrament.

Indirect violation is done by saying or doing or omitting something from which others can know or suspect that which is the object of the seal, with probable danger of introducing knowledge or suspicion of the person who did it.

It is not so much a formal violation of the seal as the danger of violation, namely, of knowing together the sin and the sinner. For this a merely possible suspicion does not suffice, but at least a probable one; nevertheless it is not required that the hearers know or suspect the person, but that suspicion can prudently arise. This is a mortal sin from its genus, which nevertheless sometimes admits lightness of matter, namely, when the danger of knowing the matter of the seal and of rendering the sacrament odious is slight and very remote.

627. Indirect ways of violating the seal. - They are various, whether consisting in words or in deeds, and according to various adjuncts; some of these we report from approved authors.

A. In words: 1) If the confessor, in narrating some fact from confession, mentions such circumstances that the penitent can easily be recognized from them. Very well known is the example of a pastor who, after 25 years of priesthood, narrates in company that the first penitent who confessed to him confessed adultery; a little afterward a man enters and narrates while all are hearing: I was your first penitent.

If, after the confessions of few have been heard, he says that he has heard such a grave sin, although he conceals the person, provided the penitents can be known by those to whom the sin is narrated: for each one suffers some suspicion against himself from that revelation.

If, from those things which he knew by confession alone, he says about a community (college, convent, village, town, region, religious order) a relatively graver sin, or relatively many more sins, or altogether special vices, beyond those things which are known to be committed there, even with every danger of suspicion about determinate persons in particular excluded: for nevertheless there is suspicion about the individuals, or at least less esteem or infamy and disgrace redounds to the whole community, and therefore to the penitents insofar as they are members of the community; and the detriment is the graver because the matter is confirmed by the authentic testimony of the confessor.

Thus one who says that he heard a grave sin in such a convent, or that grave sins are committed in such a religious order, which he knows from confession alone; and he who asserts that in a small place (about 3,000 persons, or fewer) a hidden vice or venereal disease prevails, or that such grave crimes are perpetrated there, which he knows from confession, e.g., many sacrileges or thefts; and one who about a somewhat larger place narrates an infaming sin or an enormous crime, such as incest or sodomy; - not however if he narrated grave things only about religious in general, or about an order, if it were more numerous and notoriously very relaxed, or even if he said greater things about great cities, in which such things are also committed.

If he addresses or reproves the penitent with so loud a voice that those standing around understand from his responses or admonitions what the penitent has confessed, or that he sinned gravely.

If not from the first beginning but in the progress of confession, he says with a loud voice to a somewhat deaf penitent: return, or something similar.

If he says that someone confessed to him as to an extraordinary confessor or to one endowed with greater faculties, or that he approached him secretly, or that he denied absolution to such a one, or (unless somewhere the custom were general) that he had not yet absolved him, or had put him off only after trial, or for a time, or had not yet received his completed confession, or had imposed on him a grave penance; for from this it is inferred that there was present a grave crime.

If, in comparing several penitents, either explicitly or implicitly (as brothers or fellow-students), he praises one or two, e.g., concerning purity of conscience or because he brings only venial sins, but says nothing about the others: for then more often he will introduce suspicion of some matter of importance, or of mortal sin, or of indisposition.

If he admonishes the parents or superiors of the penitent that they should watch especially in these circumstances, e.g., in such a place or at such a time.

If he speaks with another confessor about a sin which the penitent confessed to both.

B. In deeds: 1) If the confessor, sitting in the confessional, rises and in a manner which bystanders can observe reads the table of reserved cases.

If by a visible gesture, groan, or exclamation he manifests wonder or sadness.

If, after the confession has been heard, he immediately leaves the church, taking no care about the communion of the penitent, which otherwise would be likely.

If he denies a testimony of confession to a penitent who asks in the presence of others, or in circumstances in which it is customarily granted to all; concerning this see below, n. 630, 4.