Who is bound by the seal

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

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

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

¹ Can. 889.

Besides the confessor, who, as minister of the sacrament to which the seal is annexed, is obligated primarily and principally, secondarily and participatively "the interpreter also and all others to whom knowledge of confession has come in any way whatever are held by the obligation of preserving the sacramental seal" (can. 889, § 2). Except the case in which the penitent himself manifests the things confessed by himself. Under the name of confession comes every accusation to which, according to what was said in n. 430, the benefit of the sacramental seal belongs principally or participatively.

The reason for the rule stated is that "otherwise provision would not have been made sufficiently for the reverence of this sacrament, nor would hatred of confession have been sufficiently removed" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 648). The penitent, who is immune from the burden of the sacramental seal, transfers the knowledge of the confession made by himself even without that burden.

Therefore, besides the confessor, the following are bound:

I. The interpreter; for he, just as one hearing a confession, of whom we shall speak immediately, has received knowledge of the confession from the very confession of the penitent. The same must be said for the same reason about one who within confession writes the sins for the penitent (St. Alphonsus, VI, 647, 3 and 8).

II. One who has heard the confession of another, whether by chance or deliberately; one who deliberately hears, by that very act, violates the sacramental secret. Those are not held to the seal who have heard a confession which someone has freely made publicly; for such a manner of acting by its nature deprives confession of the benefit of the sacramental secret.

III. Those to whom a matter closed by the seal has been sacrilegiously or imprudently revealed; likewise one to whom the confessor, with the license of the penitent, for instance for the sake of seeking counsel, has revealed the matter, unless, what cannot be presumed, the license was granted indefinitely, so that the knowledge became extra-sacramental (St. Alphonsus, VI, 647, 5; 648).

IV. A Superior or another reading letters in which the faculty is sought of absolving someone from reserved sins, or something similar, is held by the sacramental seal as follows:

1. He is held if the letters were written by the confessor after confession had at least been begun, because the one reading received knowledge of the confession through the mediation of a confessor already bound to the sacramental seal.

2. Likewise he seems to be held if the letters were written by the confessor in order to a confession to be made, or by the penitent either before or after confession. The reason is that the liceity of using knowledge received in this way seems to redound to the detriment of confession, which cannot rightly be made without the faculty having been obtained.

V. One consulted about a confession to be made to him, that is, to the one consulted, probably is held by the sacramental seal, because the consultation of the one to whom, according to the intention of the one consulting, confession will be made is so closely united with the confession that will follow that the liceity of using knowledge received in this way seems to redound to the detriment of the sacrament. The opposite must be said if someone is consulted about confession to be made before another; authors more commonly adhere to this solution of the case (St. Alphonsus, VI, 649). The opposite also must be said if the penitent consults a priest, for instance about a special case, without thinking of confession to be made to him, and, after counsel has been received, makes confession. But let the confessor beware of scandal.

VI. One reading a paper on which the penitent wrote the confession:

1. Of himself he is not held by the sacramental seal, because a paper of this kind is neither a confession nor a necessary means of making confession, so that the liceity of using knowledge of confession received in this way does not redound to the detriment of confession; in other words, it renders not confession but only the writing odious (St. Alphonsus, VI, 650).

2. He is held by the sacramental seal: 1. who reads the paper while the confessor reads it, since in that case by the writing itself sins are manifested here and now to the confessor, and he is rightly said to have drawn knowledge of the confession from the confession of the penitent; 2. who reads the paper while the penitent reads the confession from it, because, at least morally speaking, he comes to knowledge of the confession by means of confession; 3. probably, who reads the paper left behind by the confessor after confession, because in the case it seems possible to say that, through the mediation of the confessor, he received knowledge of the confession, and therefore he is held by the seal, as those assigned under III; 4. who reads the paper in the case in which it was the prescribed means of making confession, as can happen in a mute person (n. 326). The reason is that the liceity of using knowledge of confession drawn from a necessary means of confessing would redound to the detriment of confession (St. Alphonsus, cited place).

VII. One reading letters written by the confessor to the penitent, in which matters closed by the seal are treated, is held by the sacramental seal, because he receives knowledge of the confession from the confessor (cf. n. III). But one who reads letters sent by the penitent to the confessor, in which confessed matter is treated, is not held by the sacramental seal, whether this is done for the sake of completing confession or is not done for that end. The reason is that the said letters are in no way confession, nor does that so-called complement of confession have anything of confession properly so called. Moreover, the liceity of using knowledge drawn from those letters does not render confession odious, but only that so-called complement added outside a new confession.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

651. Principles. - I. Every Confessor is primarily bound to the seal, whether true or fictitious and by error believed legitimate, and consequently even a layman who should pretend to be a priest and hear confession. The reason is that whenever someone confesses in order to the Sacrament, whoever hears him contracts by that very fact the obligation of the seal; otherwise hatred of the Sacrament would follow from it. - Thus all.

II. Those are secondarily bound who become participants in the confession, or all those to whom knowledge of the confession comes in any manner, whether from the confession itself or from means ordered to it. It is said, first, from the confession itself, for the matter accused comes to their knowledge on the same occasion; therefore the same cause on account of which the obligation of the seal is given is present, namely, lest hatred of the Sacrament be created. It is said, second, from the means, for hatred of the means redounds upon the end itself.

Hence the following are bound to the seal: 1. interpreters employed in making confession ¹; 2. Superiors from whom outside the Sacrament the faculty of absolving, or of receiving absolution from a reserved case, is sought; 3. those who hear the sin while someone confesses, whether deliberately or even inculpably, and likewise if others should perhaps hear it from them; 4. those who write the confession of the uneducated or of those ignorant of the language of the Confessor ², especially if confession cannot be made in another manner; 5. Doctors consulted by the Confessor with the permission of the penitent; 6. all those to whom the Confessor sacrilegiously or imprudently manifested sins heard in confession. - St. Ligorius, nos. 647 and 648.

¹ Namely, if someone spontaneously wishes to confess through an interpreter; for, as was said elsewhere, no one is ever bound to this.

² Of these also that which was said about employing an interpreter avails, namely, that no obligation to use these means is present.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

653. • QUESTION 3. Is one who reads a paper on which the penitent wrote his confession bound to the seal?

Reply 1. No, per se. The reason is that this is not a means ordered of itself to confession and therefore does not of itself induce the obligation of the sacramental seal, but only of natural secrecy. Nevertheless, this presses per se under grave sin unless the matter concerns the slightest faults. - St. Ligorius, no. 650.

Reply 2. Per accidens the obligation of the seal can be present if the paper were or had been a necessary means for confession; for example, if it were written by a mute person or directed to a Superior on account of some reservation ⁵; likewise if the paper had already been handed to the priest; but especially if someone were to read it while it is in the hand of the Confessor or in the act of confession, or if it had been lost by the Confessor himself ⁶, because in these cases it pertains to confession. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

⁵ It was already observed elsewhere that no one, not even a mute person, is bound to write; and if the Superior who can grant the faculty for reserved cases is absent, it was already said elsewhere that the penitent can confess to another, by whom he may be directly absolved from the non-reserved sins, and thus the reserved sins also be indirectly remitted.

⁶ Cardinal De Lugo, from whom these things were taken, does not limit the case to a paper lost by the Confessor himself, but says generally (On Penance, disputation 23, no. 48): Indeed, even if after absolution someone found it in the confessional, it seems probable that he would be bound to the seal, because it seems to be the confession itself remaining. But it can be left in the confessional also by the penitent, whether he received it back after it had been read by the Confessor, and by the best counsel the Confessor will always return the paper to the penitent, or whether the penitent confessed from the writing. Wherefore it seems that the canon discussed above at no. 650, question 2, must also be employed here.

654. • QUESTION 4. Is a Doctor consulted by the penitent himself bound to the seal of confession?

Reply. No, at least more probably, if he is consulted concerning a confession to be made to another; but he is bound only to natural secrecy. The reason is that the obligation of the seal arises from sacramental confession alone, in which the penitent manifests sins in order to absolution. - St. Ligorius, no. 549; Suarez, disputation 33, section 4; Billuart, dissertation 8, article 3, against some who therefore affirm it because revelation would render confession odious. But, as St. Ligorius deservedly replies, not confession itself but the consultation would become odious.

I said above, if he is consulted concerning a confession to be made to another, because if the penitent consults him concerning a confession to be made to that same man, he is bound by the seal, since this consultation must be held as a confession begun.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. The subjects of the seal are all those who from sacramental confession, whether immediately or mediately, whether licitly or illicitly, have knowledge of a thing comprehended under the seal, or have heard something: of itself and first the confessor, secondarily and by participation all to whom, by chance or industry, knowledge of confession comes. For since all these have been participants of the secret of sacramental confession, they are also participants of the obligation of preserving it (cf. can. 889, § 2). And indeed:

A. Immediately they have knowledge: 1) the confessor, whether true or fictive, even a layman, the true one of himself, but the fictive accidentally;

2. the confessor who outside confession is consulted by the penitent concerning sins to be accused in a confession to be made to himself, because the confession is already begun;

3. the interpreter employed in performing confession, namely communicating in the very act of confession, or he who writes down the sins of another to be confessed, at least within confession;

4. those standing by and neighbors hearing confession whether by chance or by industry, indeed all who attempt to hear one confessing by that very fact are guilty of violation of the seal; not however those before whom the penitent, while noticing that he is heard, speaks more loudly and confesses publicly;

B. Mediately they have knowledge: 1) the superior to whom one provisionally absolved from reserved things presents himself by law, or from whom outside confession the faculty of absolving reserved things is sought;

2. the consulted theologian to whom a case of conscience is referred with permission of the penitent: for he is a participant of the secret;

3. all those who from the confessor or from others have heard, sacrilegiously, or imprudently, or legitimately, sins accused in confession, or to whom either the confessor or any other having knowledge has shown something falling under the seal; indeed

4. he who has read the written confession of another, if the writing was in fact the means of confession, for example, if he read the paper either in the act of accusation, while the penitent is actually using it, or already handed to the confessor, while it is in his hand, or lost by the confessor, or left in the confessional after absolution; likewise he who has read letters directed to the superior for the faculty concerning reserved things.

C. On the contrary, the following are not held by the seal: 1) he who reads a paper on which the penitent has described his sins by way of examination of conscience, or as a means for helping memory or for making confession more easily, which namely he used before confession or preserved afterwards: for it is mere preparation for confession and is ordered to confession only remotely and accidentally;

2. he whom the confessor consults with the permission of the penitent, but concerning a confession to be made to another, or who writes the confession outside confession;

3. the penitent himself: for the obligation of the seal is in favor of the penitent.

Yet they are held by natural secrecy, even the penitent himself, who must be silent concerning those things from which either infamy, or confusion, or damage would happen to the confessor unjustly, without a just reason.

624. The subject of the seal. - They are all those who from sacramental confession, whether immediately or mediately, whether licitly or illicitly, have knowledge of a matter comprehended under the seal or have heard something: per se and first the confessor, secondarily and by participation all those to whom, by accident or by design, knowledge of confession has come. For since all these have been sharers in the secret of sacramental confession, they are also sharers in the obligation of preserving it (can. 889, § 2).

In particular, A. those have immediate knowledge:

1. the confessor, whether true or fictitious, even a layman; the true one per se, the fictitious one per accidens;

2. the confessor who outside confession is consulted by the penitent concerning sins to be accused in confession to be made to himself, because confession has already been begun;

3. an interpreter employed in carrying out confession, namely one communicating in the very act of confession, or one who writes down the sins of another to be confessed, at least within confession;

4. bystanders and neighbors hearing the confession, whether by accident or by design; indeed all who attempt to hear the one confessing, by that very fact, are guilty of violation of the seal; not, however, those in whose presence the penitent, noticing that he is heard, speaks more loudly and confesses publicly.

B. Those have mediate knowledge:

1. the superior before whom, by law, one provisionally absolved from reserved sins presents himself, or from whom, outside confession, the faculty of absolving reserved sins is sought;

2. the consulted theologian to whom a case of conscience is referred with the permission of the penitent: for he is a sharer in the secret;

3. all those who from the confessor or from others have sacrilegiously, or imprudently, or legitimately heard sins accused in confession, or to whom either the confessor or anyone else having knowledge has shown something falling under the seal;

4. indeed one who has read the written confession of another, if the writing was in fact the medium of confession, e.g., if he has read the paper either in the act of accusation, while the penitent actually uses it, or after it has already been handed to the confessor, while it is in his hand, or after it was lost by the confessor, or after absolution left in the confessional; likewise one who has read letters directed to the superior for the faculty from reserved sins.

C. On the contrary, these are not bound by the seal:

1. one who reads a paper on which the penitent has described his sins by way of examination of conscience, or of a means for assisting the memory, or for more easily making confession, which, namely, he used before confession or preserved afterward: for it is mere preparation for confession and is ordered to confession only remotely and per accidens;

2. the one whom the confessor consults with the permission of the penitent, but concerning a confession to be made to another, or one who writes the confession outside confession;

3. the penitent himself: for the obligation of the seal is in favor of the penitent.

Yet they are bound by natural secrecy, even the penitent himself, who ought to keep silent about those things from which either infamy, or confusion, or harm would arise unjustly and without just reason for the confessor.

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

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

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

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

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

A lawyer consulted a priest regarding the following case:

Some time ago a certain person—whom we will call Anna—died, and in her will bequeathed all her property to a farmer in whose house she had for many years received very kind hospitality. She did not mention her relatives in her will, but they are now questioning its validity and declaring that she was in her dotage and incapable of making a will at all. The farmer, however, who has inherited the property, says: “ Anna was not altogether weak in her mind, for she often went to confession and Holy Communion; you have only to ask her confessor, our parish priest.” “It is my duty,” said the lawyer, “to defend the will, and I do not know whether to call the priest as witness or not. It would be unpleasant if he refused to answer before the Court, and pleaded the seal of the confessional. What would you do?” The priest whom he was consulting hesitated a little and then replied: “I should refuse in court to give any answer at all with reference to the confessional.”

Is this priest’s opinion correct?

According to Müller, Theol. Mor., III. § 169, The sacramental seal generally comprehends everything manifested in confession whose revelation would bring the Sacrament into odium and burden the penitent. A priest therefore must never reveal the sins confessed, nor their circumstances and causes, nor the penance imposed, nor any natural infirmities and tendencies in his penitent, e. g., a tendency to scrupulosity, for these things become known to him in the confessional. The fact that a penitent has made a confession to a certain priest cannot be a secret. The only case in which a priest ought not to state that he has heard a confession is if such a statement would lead others to infer that the penitent had committed and confessed some particular sin. There is no reason to fear anything of the kind in the case under discussion, where no particular sins, but the general intelligence of the deceased penitent, is in question.

What ought the priest to say if the judge asked him directly to give his opinion of Anna, and to say whether he considered her weak-minded or responsible for her actions? He would then be required to state whether, on the ground of her confession, he regarded Anna as capable of sinning and of receiving absolution.

Without betraying any secret, he could answer this question affirmatively, since he had allowed Anna to receive Holy Communion, and he would not have done so, had he not been able to absolve her, on account of her weak intellect.

Such a statement would not break the seal of the confessional, and would not be detrimental to the dead woman. The priest whom the lawyer consulted, however, said that he would give no answer in court regarding the confessional. He might perhaps allege, as his justification for this view, that an affirmative answer on the part of the confessor might possibly cedere in odium sacramenti, should the party contesting the validity of the will lose their case as a result of his statement.

They might possibly say: "If the priest does not observe the secrecy of the confessional before a court of law, I will not go to confession again." Such unjust and malicious remarks might be made afterwards regarding the Sacrament of Penance; but if there were no reason to fear any such observations, the priest might make his statement tuta conscientia. The judge would have no power to compel him to speak, for he is protected by state laws which hold that what is confided to a priest in confession or under the seal of secrecy is an inviolable official secret and he can give no information with regard to it.—Petrus Dolzer.