Chapter III: The Duties of the Confessor After the Confession

The confessor has certain duties to perform after the confession. These are principally two, one of which is always and _per se_ incumbent upon him, viz.: the _preservation of the seal of the confessional_; while the other, the _correcting of errors which may have occurred in the confession_, may arise _per accidens_.

58. The Duty of correcting Errors occurring in the Confession.

The confessor more easily and more seriously errs in the administration of the Sacrament of Penance (by reason of the variety of the duties which this office imposes upon him) than in the other Sacraments. The errors here committed may, moreover, have grave consequences. It is, therefore, necessary to treat of them in detail and to show how they may be corrected.

The errors which the confessor (even the instructed and conscientious confessor) may commit in the confessional are classified under three heads: (1) _Those which affect the validity of the Sacrament_: when the confessor has forgotten to give absolution, or has given it without due jurisdiction, or to a penitent insufficiently prepared; (2) _those which refer to the integrity of the confession_: when the confessor has not asked concerning the number or circumstances when he was bound to ask; and (3) _those relating to the duties of the penitent_: when the confessor has not admonished the penitent to avoid some immediate occasion of sin, or to make restitution, or where he has obliged him to restore when there was no obligation.[766]

Now an error may entail great injury to the penitent, or to a third person, or again no great harm may result. Moreover, the error may have been committed through great culpability on the part of the confessor, or without such culpability, at least without great culpability. Finally, the error may be _positive_, the confessor _doing_ something wrong; or it may be _negative_, the confessor neglecting something he should have done.

As regards the duty of rectifying these errors, the following principles are to be observed:—

I. An error touching the validity of the Sacrament, resulting from _grave fault_ on the part of the confessor, and causing great harm to the penitent, must, _ex justitia_, be made good by the confessor, even when such reparation involves serious trouble.

Even if the confessor is not bound in justice to hear confessions, as soon as he does so, he enters into a kind of agreement with the penitent to administer the Sacrament properly; if he administers it invalidly, he is a _damnificator injustus_, and must, _ex justitia_, and _secundum justitiæ regulas_, make good the injury he has caused. But if the fault of the confessor was only a slight one, he is, as regards the correction of the error, in the position of one who has, _inculpabiliter_, caused some temporal harm. In this case, he would be bound to make good the error only when he could do so without relatively great inconvenience to himself. And if the confessor sinned gravely in committing the error, he would also be excused from remedying it, if his own _incommodum_ much exceeded the detriment and danger resulting from it to his penitent. But if, in consequence of the confessor’s error, the penitent’s eternal salvation has been seriously endangered—for instance, if he has invalidly absolved a dying person, or one who will probably not confess again before his death, he must remedy this injury under all circumstances, even _cum suo damno relative gravi_, or _gravissimo_; for this is also a duty of charity. Likewise when the confessor is the pastor of the penitent, and, therefore, _ratione stipendii_, the more strictly bound to avert from those committed to him great spiritual injury, he must _cum gravi incommodo_ make good an error committed _cum levi culpa_. If the penitent has subsequently confessed to another priest, or received holy communion or Extreme Unction, the injury done to the penitent is thereby already made good, and the confessor has no further obligations.[767]

II. If the error touches the integrity of the confession, the confessor is not bound to remedy it outside the confessional, if his action in the matter has been of a _negative_ character; this error he must make good _ex charitate_, and _secundum regulas charitatis_, whether the error was culpable on his part or not. But if his action was _positive cum gravi sua culpa_, he must remedy the error even outside the confessional, for he is bound to do so _ex justitia_ and, in consequence, even with grave inconvenience to himself. Only when this could not be done without causing scandal and much embarrassment to the penitent would the confessor be justified in not doing it. But it should be carefully observed that an intentional silence must, under circumstances, be regarded as a _positive_ influence upon the penitent.

That in the case of an omission the confessor is bound only _ex charitate_ to remedy the defect is explained by the fact that he failed in his accessory duties, not doing that which he ought to have done—the obligation here arises, as the theologians say, not so much _ex officio_, as _occasione officii_, or not on account of a duty which he owes to God, but rather on account of a duty which he, _titulo justitiæ et muneris_, always owes to men. For these accessory duties towards our fellow-men, in so far as they are duties of office or of _quasi-justitia_, do not extend beyond the act of confession itself.[768]

It follows from this that such defects or errors are hardly ever to be corrected outside the Sacrament of Penance, for the penitent will, presumably, receive this Sacrament again. But if, by not being informed of the error, so great injury, especially spiritual injury, should result to the penitent that charity demanded reparation of even this negative defect, the confessor must make the reparation even outside the confessional. For any other person—not a confessor—would, under like circumstances, be similarly bound towards his neighbor.

That a confessor should be bound _ex justitia_ to make good an error committed through a _positive_ action and _cum gravi sua culpa_, is based upon the fact that he has caused the penitent to infringe an important commandment (the integrity of the confession). Even if this infringement had been for the penitent only a material one,—therefore, not sinful,—the confessor would be obliged to prevent such material infringement for the future by correcting the error caused by himself. But if the fault of the confessor in committing the error was only a slight one, a lesser ground would release him from the duty of correcting the fault; and if he acted _bona fide_, he is entirely released from it, seeing that subsequent instruction concerning the fault committed can never take place without embarrassment and difficulty.[769]

III. A defect having reference to a duty of the penitent, which causes the latter, or a third person injury, must be made good by the confessor _cum gravi suo incommodo_, if _cum gravi sua culpa_ he has instructed the penitent falsely; if he committed the error without great fault on his part, he is not bound to correct it _cum gravi_, although he is bound _cum aliquo incommodo_. The confessor is, in this case, _causa injusta damni_, and has, therefore, the obligations of a _damnificator injustus_.

The injury caused by the confessor may be spiritual, in consequence of wrong instruction, or temporal, by imposing restitution, or some similar burden to which the penitent was not bound. With reference to others than the penitent, the question will generally be one of temporal loss in consequence of the penitent having been released from his duties to them. The question of injury to the community at large should be remembered in this connection.

If, therefore, the confessor committed the error _cum gravi culpa_, for instance, caused some great temporal harm, he must repair it himself if it cannot be otherwise repaired, and prevent injury which has not yet ensued, but which may ensue. If the error took place without his fault, he is not bound to repair any harm which ensues before he knew of the error, and which could not be repaired without great detriment to himself. He must, however, avert injury which is still threatening, and repair that which already exists if it can be done without relatively great detriment to himself. If he neglects this _ex gravi negligentia_, he is guilty of a great injustice, and is responsible for all harm which he did not prevent. So, if he has wrongly bound any one to make restitution, he must advise the penitent (after obtaining from him permission to speak about matters of confession) not to make the restitution, or if he has already made it, to indemnify himself _compensatione occulta_, if this be possible. If he omits, _ex gravi negligentia_, so to instruct the penitent, he is bound to make good the injury out of his own means, in case his warning, or the retractation of his error, is no longer effectual in preventing the injury, or compensating for it. But if, after becoming aware of his error, the confessor can no longer warn the penitent, or if the warning or retractation must be regarded as useless, he is free from all obligation. If from the first the confessor’s error was fraught with great guilt, he is bound, if it is any way possible, to see that justice is done to the injured person.[770] The same principles hold good if a third person has suffered injury, or been exposed to the risk of it by the fault of the confessor. If the evil consequences are sufficiently remote and the case admits of delay, the error may be set right in the next confession of the penitent; for generally it is no easy matter to speak about anything connected with a confession outside the confessional. In cases of necessity, however, the confessor must brave this difficulty and do his duty.

Gobat[771] gives confessors (especially young ones) the following excellent rules which they should always keep in view in order to acquire the necessary prudence and dexterity in their office:—

1. After he has heard a confession, the confessor should always reflect if, and in what, he has erred, so that he may avoid these faults in future.

2. In giving or refusing absolution, in imposing a penance, the confessor’s first consideration should always be the welfare of the penitent and his greater spiritual advantage.

3. Let him be careful not to pronounce a sin mortal without being certain that it is so.

4. In doubt as to whether restitution or a similar duty is to be imposed, let him adopt the more lenient opinion of the theologians if this is really probable.

5. The confessor of a penitent must presume that the former confessor discharged his duty properly, unless he sees plainly the contrary.

6. The confessor must know the different opinions of theologians upon one and the same matter when such exist and are practically probable, in order to make use of one or the other, according to the different dispositions of the penitents and their requirements.

59. The Duty of preserving the Seal of Confession.

By the seal of confession, or _sigillum confessionis sive sacramentale_, we understand the duty of preserving silence concerning everything which has been learnt in sacramental confession.

I. The duty of preserving the seal of the confessional is based upon natural and divine law and upon the strict precept of the Church. It is true, God has not laid down any formal and express demand to preserve the seal of confession, but that this is His will results (_naturaliter_) from the divine institution of confession, and especially from the _commandment_ which _obliges_ all the faithful to confess all their mortal sins, but which binds them only to confess their sins _in secret_ (_secreto_). Now this general law to confess all, even the gravest and most secret sins, would assuredly be too burdensome to the faithful; indeed, its observance would become simply morally impossible if confessors were not bound by the strictest obligation to preserve the seal of the confessional. Danger to human life and the social order, would, in fact, be inevitable if this duty did not exist. Thus the seal of the confessional seems to be an indispensable condition of the observance of the commandment to make full confession of sins. But he who prescribes an end must also prescribe the means necessary to that end. And if every man is bound to preserve a secret confided to him, a confessor is still more bound, under all circumstances, to maintain silence concerning sins which have been confessed to him as _secretum_, seeing that so much depends upon his fidelity in this respect,—the sanctity, the usefulness, and the blessings of the holy Sacrament of Penance.[772] Moreover, the duty of preserving the seal of the confessional is imposed by an express law of the Church, which has existed in constant tradition, and is thus expressed by the IV. Council of the Lateran:[773] Let the confessor beware of betraying the sinner in any way, by a word, or a sign, or by any other means; but if he should stand in need of wiser counsel let him ask for it without, in any way, indicating the person.

II. It results also from the above that the obligation of the seal belongs _to the virtue of religion_. Breaking it is an abuse of a Sacrament, therefore, rightly regarded as a kind of sacrilege; however, it must not be confessed under the general designation of a sacrilege, but as a breach of the seal of confession, in order that the ultimate and full species of the sin may be recognized.

Inasmuch as the confessor, _ex officio_, listens to the confession of the penitent, he is bound, _ex fidelitate_, to silence concerning everything which the interest of the penitent demands that he should keep secret. Finally, breaking the seal of confession would, in many cases, be a defamation of the penitent, and would, therefore, be an _injustice_. It is thus of its nature a very grave sin, a sacrilege, which is generally accompanied by injury to reputation and breach of faith.[774]

III. The obligation of the seal is a very strict one, admitting neither _parvitas materia per se_, nor any exception: only when the penitent has expressly and voluntarily given permission would it be allowable to disclose anything heard in confession, and even then prudence will generally dissuade the confessor from making use of the permission.[775]

St. Alphonsus teaches,[776] as _sententia certissima_, that never, and in no case, is the slightest disclosure of the secrets of the confessional permitted, not even to save one’s life, to save the state, or to remedy the greatest spiritual necessity. The reason for this most stringent obligation is clear. If there were only one exception made, people would always be in a state of fear that this or that sin might be sufficient ground for lawfully breaking the seal, and the Sacrament would thereby become odious.[777]

When, therefore, the confessor is asked concerning anything which he has learnt in the confessional, he must, _per se_, reprimand the questioner, reminding him that such questions are quite inadmissible. If, however, he can see no other effectual way of evading the question or of averting suspicion from the penitent, he can and must declare, even upon oath, that the penitent has not confessed to him what is in question, that he knows nothing at all about it. Such a statement is not a lie nor is it, in consequence, a perjury if made upon oath, for it is a case of lawful use of the implicit reservation that the confessor, as a private individual,—the only capacity in which he can be expected to answer,—has no knowledge of a subject revealed to him as a representative of God.[778]

And should the confessor be asked if he has given absolution to a penitent, let him answer, “I did what it was my duty to do,” or, still better, dismiss the questioner with the answer, “Such questions are not allowed.” If he had not given the absolution and was asked by a priest or other cleric if the penitent might receive holy communion, he must answer, “Ask him yourself.”[779]

Concerning the penitent’s permission to speak about the confession, St. Alphonsus teaches as follows: 1. This permission must be given in words, or by facts which convey it, as, for instance, when the penitent himself begins to talk to the confessor about something said in the confessional. This permission may not be presumed even if it were for the penitent’s own welfare.[780]

2. Permission obtained by threats or _metus reverentialis_ does not suffice; for instance, if the confessor has obtained it through repeated requests, the penitent having at first refused it.[781] 3. The penitent can recall the permission which he has given at his pleasure.[782] 4. When the confessor has obtained the permission let him be very careful not to overstep the limits laid down by the penitent.[783]

IV. The duty of preserving the seal of the confessional thus differs from that of preserving any other secret in the following points: (_a_) It does not admit _parvitas materiæ_; (_b_) it exists even with regard to the person who has confessed, or whom the secret concerns; (_c_) it never admits of any exception.[784]

V. The duty of secrecy attaches to _every_ really sacramental confession; that is, confession made with the intention of accusing one’s self and of obtaining absolution. Therefore, (_a_) confession _knowingly_ made to a cleric or a priest without jurisdiction does not impose the duty of silence, but only the obligation of the natural secret, excepting, however, the case where the penitent intended that the priest should obtain jurisdiction, and afterwards give him absolution. The duty of the seal would also come into effect if the penitent believed that the priest to whom he confessed had jurisdiction. (_b_) If a person informs a confessor of the state of his conscience not with the intention of receiving absolution, but for the purpose of obtaining advice or instruction for his spiritual life, or for some other object, there is no obligation of the seal, but only of the _secretum naturale_ and _commissum_; though of this class of secrets it is unquestionably the most binding. The same principles would apply if a person said that he made the disclosures concerning himself only _sub sigillo_. But there is always this difference between the case mentioned and the seal of the confessional, that here _parvitas materiæ_ is admissible, and that the secret is, of itself, not violated by any reference to the person concerned.[785] (_c_) A pretended confession, made for the purpose of deceiving, or seducing, or ridiculing the priest, does not impose the duty of the seal and the priest might, at the call of circumstances, make use of knowledge thus obtained, in his defense. On the other hand, a confession begun with the honest intention of receiving the Sacrament, but during which the penitent allowed himself to be carried away and influenced by some sinful purpose, would impose the duty of the seal, since such confession was, at least in part, sacramental.[786] (_d_) Finally, a confession, or relation of sins made for some other purpose would not impose it, though, under circumstances, the duty of the strictest _secretum naturale et commissum_ may ensue. The confessor is also forbidden to make use of a probable opinion in matters which come under the seal, whether the _probabilitas_ be _facti_ or _juris_. The _probabilitas facti_ would turn on the question whether it is probable that the confession made was sacramental or not; in neither case have I any right to say or do anything which might possibly amount to a breach of the seal. The _probabilitas juris_ exists when authors disagree as to what constitutes an infraction of the seal; here I may not adopt any form of action or speech which on solid probable grounds would mean a breach of the seal, or tend to make the Sacrament odious to the faithful. On the contrary, it must be morally certain that the utterance or action in question excludes all danger of disclosure and of aversion to the Sacrament.[787]

60. The Subject of the Seal of Confession.

The duty of preserving the seal of confession binds, in the first place, the confessor who hears the confession. It devolves also upon all who, by lawful or unlawful means, have acquired knowledge of that which falls under the seal; otherwise the penitent would not be sufficiently protected, and might be deterred from approaching the Sacrament. This extension of the duty of the seal was certainly in the intention of Our Saviour.[788]

In addition to the confessor, therefore, the following are bound by the seal of the confessional: (_a_) the Superior to whom the penitent or the confessor (with permission of the penitent) had recourse either verbally or by writing, in a reserved case, or a similar matter; (_b_) any one employed as an interpreter in a confession; (_c_) the theologian whom the confessor consulted, either verbally or by writing, in a difficult case, and especially any person to whom the confessor in any way communicated matter learnt in the confessional—whether that communication was made _sacrilege vel imprudentur_, or in a lawful manner—excepting when the penitent has, perhaps, widened the limits of his permission.[789] If, therefore (for example), the confessor, in behalf of the penitent, should ask for a remission of debts, and, in doing so, with the penitent’s permission, discloses to the injured person the sin of theft, etc., the latter possesses the knowledge of this theft under the seal of the confessional; for it is in the penitent’s power to give permission to propagate information received by the confessor in the confessional, either under the same seal, that is, in the same manner as the confessor possesses it, or in some less stringent manner.[790] (_d_) He who, either accidentally or purposely, has heard the confession of another, and those who, through him, have obtained knowledge of a sin so heard. Deliberately to overhear the confession of another is, of itself, a breach of the seal. (_e_) Whoever reads a piece of paper upon which the penitent has written his sins may be bound either under the seal, or to the natural secret only. He is bound under the seal: (1) if he should read the written confession _in actu confessionis_, especially, if it is already handed to the confessor for the purpose of confession; (2) if he found it in the confessional, having been left there by the confessor, “for this knowledge is none other than that of the confessor”; (3) if he snatched it from the hand of the confessor to whom the penitent had handed it; (4) if it had been snatched from the hands of the penitent while he was confessing, or had fallen from his hands; (5) if writing the confession is, for the penitent, the necessary means of making a complete confession, reading this writing before the confession also imposes the obligation of the seal; (6) this holds good _in every case_ after the confession, _before_ the document has so far returned to the penitent’s possession that he has voluntarily preserved it when he might have destroyed it; (7) whosoever reads the letter in which permission is asked of a Superior to absolve from a reserved case, as this belongs to the confession.

On the other hand, whoever reads the written enumeration of the sins of others is bound to the natural secret only: (1) if the penitent, after completing his confession, had voluntarily left the document behind, had thrown it away, had not destroyed it; and (2) if the penitent, without exactly intending to make his confession, had written down his sins, and this document is read prior to the confession. Though in this case the obligation of the natural secret only comes into force, it is the strictest of its kind.[791] The penitent is not bound by the seal to be silent about what the confessor has said to him; but he is bound to natural secrecy concerning everything the revelation of which might injure the confessor or the Sacrament; indeed the penitent is more strictly bound to silence, because the confessor, unlike other men, does not impart advice and instruction spontaneously but in virtue of his office.[792]

61. The Object or Matter of the Seal of Confession.

The object of the seal of confession is, in general, everything the revealing of which would make confession odious. This is a natural deduction from the end of the law and from a decision of the S. C. Inquis. given under the authority of Innocent XI, Nov. 18, 1682, by which a proposition was rejected permitting the use of all information obtained in the confessional, as long as no direct or indirect revelation takes place.[793]

Objects of the seal are:—

1. _All sins_; mortal and venial sins both of the penitent and of his accomplice (_complex_);[794] indeed, notoriously public sins, also, in so far as they are known through the medium of confession. Not only mortal and venial sins _in individuo_, but also _omnino in genere_. It would be no breach of the seal to say, in a general way, that the penitent had committed venial sins or only venial sins, especially as the penitent himself, by going to confession, practically tells every one that he has committed _some sin_, at least a venial sin; and it is, moreover, a matter of faith that no man can remain free from all venial sin, unless he has received a special privilege from God, and the Blessed Virgin alone is known positively to have possessed such a privilege.

2. _The objects and circumstances of the sins_, and not only that which it is of precept to confess, but also that which the penitent believed necessary for the better explanation of his sins. For example, if a son confesses that he hates his father because the latter has committed adultery, the adultery of the father, although not a necessary part of the confession of the son, is, nevertheless, an object of the seal; or when the penitent confesses a murder at which he has rejoiced, a duel which he has witnessed, etc.[795]

3. _The penance imposed_, except when this is a small one such as is generally imposed for the slightest sins; for a more severe penance indicates that graver sins have been committed.

4. _Temptations_, because they stand in relation to sins, in so far as the penitent doubts if he has consented to them, or asks advice of the confessor in order not to yield to them.

5. _Defects_, which are confessed in explanation of a sin; for example, illegitimacy, where a penitent has received Orders, in opposition to the law of the Church. _Natural_ defects of the penitent also, in so far as they are known through the confessional, and tend to his disgrace (for instance, defective education, stupidity, etc.), are objects of the seal. But if these do not stand in any relation to the confession, or if the penitent would not resent their being made known, and if they are matter of general knowledge already, they are not objects of the seal.[796]

6. _The penitent’s position in life_ may be, _ex se_, an object of the seal, in so far as information about it is necessary in order to explain the sins according to their ultimate species. Nevertheless, it may be assumed that this information, even when thus necessary, is not given to the confessor _sub sigillo_, but rather _prævie_. If it is a question of a position known to every one (though perhaps not known to the confessor) the penitent does not intend to include this knowledge under the seal. But it is a different matter when, on account of certain circumstances, the penitent attaches importance to his incognito. It is certainly not allowed so to speak of the position and circumstances of the penitent so as to indicate thereby that he had sinned against individual duties of his position.[797]

7. _Scruples_, or the scrupulosity of the penitent, may be an object either of the seal, or of the natural secret. (_a_) The scruples themselves which the penitent confesses are, of course, _direct_ objects of the seal, in so far as they are considered by him to be sins. (_b_) The scrupulosity which the penitent confesses as a circumstance of his sins—or in order to give a better idea of his spiritual state—is likewise an object of the seal. (_c_) To say in a general way that the penitent has confessed many scruples, violates the seal in the same way as to disclose that he has confessed _several_ venial sins, real or supposed. (_d_) On the other hand, the scrupulosity which is only perceived in the manner of expression is not matter of the seal, but, _per se_, of the natural secret which obliges the more strictly as the knowledge obtained is more intimately connected with the confession itself.[798]

8. _Sins committed in the confession itself_, for example, impatience, not showing the confessor due reverence, etc., are, _per se_, not objects of the _sigillum_, because the penitent does not confess them; nevertheless, making them known might easily, and generally will, involve danger to the seal; for these sins suggest a severe reprehension or a refusal of absolution.[799]

9. _Virtues or supernatural gifts_ which the penitent discloses in order that the confessor may learn the state of his soul, are not, _per se_, objects of the seal; but if they are disclosed inasmuch as they have reference to a sin, they are matter of the _sigillum_.[800]

62. Violations of the Seal.

The seal of confession is, in the first place, violated by every communication of those things which are matter of the seal if the penitent is recognized, or if there is a danger of his being recognized. Moreover, every _use_ of things falling under the seal which is calculated to make confession odious, or to cause the penitent annoyance and detriment, is also a breach of the seal.

A distinction is, accordingly, to be made between _direct_ and _indirect_ violation of the seal; it is _directly_ violated when any matter of the seal itself is directly disclosed and the person of the penitent indicated; it is _indirectly_ violated when revelation of matter of the seal involves only risk of discovery of the penitent or danger of harm to him. In the indirect violation there may be _parvitas materiæ_; that is, when, through the _communication_ or the _use_ of that which was learnt under the seal only very slight danger of recognition would be incurred, as when the confessor speaks of the sins prevalent in some particular town or place without the inhabitants of the place becoming, thereby, appreciably prejudiced against the institution of the confessional, or any particular defamation resulting. But if there is doubt as to whether the consequences are really so slight, such a proceeding must be regarded as a great sin.

For a violation of the seal, it is not necessary that the person with whom the confessor speaks knows that he is making use of knowledge gained in the confessional; it is enough that the confessor should speak from this knowledge. Nor is it necessary that the person of the penitent should actually be recognized by him with whom the confessor speaks; it suffices that the circumstances should be such that the identity of the penitent emerges sufficiently distinct from what the confessor says, or that the person of the penitent may possibly be recognized, or that well-founded suspicion _could_ arise. As the faithful preservation of the seal is of the highest importance, the confessor must always be very careful that penitents do not become averse or disinclined to the confessional. Nevertheless he is not bound to avoid every trivial danger, and to anticipate every idle conjecture of malicious people.[801] In view of their supreme importance, we here subjoin a few cases of violation of the seal, as discussed by eminent theologians.

1. A priest indirectly violates the seal: (_a_) if he says or intimates that he refused or deferred absolution to a certain penitent, because he, thereby, implies that the penitent had confessed a grave sin, or had not been disposed; or if he says that a certain penitent’s confession had not been finished—unless it were generally known that this confession was a general one, or one concerning a long space of time, so that there can be no embarrassment on the part of the penitent. Indeed, Lugo adds that even if the penitent himself were to say that he had not been absolved, the confessor must not take the liberty of repeating it.[802] (_b_) If he said of a notorious thief that the latter had confessed his thefts to him with great sorrow. The case would be different if without entering into detail he were to remark that the same thief had made his confession to him.[803] (_c_) If he praises excessively some penitent in comparison with others whom he heard at the same time, or says that he committed venial sins only, suspicion being thus easily excited that the others had confessed grave sins. An exception would be if there were some particular ground for so speaking, without offense to the other penitents, and without danger of injurious suspicion.[804] (_d_) If two confessors, to whom the same penitent had confessed, talk together concerning his sins. (_e_) If he reproves the penitent aloud, questions him concerning circumstances of the sins, so that bystanders can hear it. (_f_) If, after having heard the confessions of some few penitents, he should say that he had heard a particular sin—for the individual penitents fall under suspicion of having committed this sin. (_g_) If he speaks of sins which he has heard in the confessional in such a way that those who hear him can infer or conjecture the identity of those who committed them. (_h_) If he speaks of sins learnt outside the confessional, but adds a circumstance learnt only in the confessional, or makes use of knowledge gathered in the confessional for the purpose of specifying or corroborating some statement. (_i_) If, without the penitent’s permission, he speaks to him outside the confessional about his sins heard in the confessional. Where the penitent himself begins, the confessor may only speak about the particular subject to which the penitent confines himself. Likewise if, after the confession, the priest’s demeanor shows that he remembers his sins and esteems him less highly than before. (_k_) If he should intimate that the penitent had _not_ confessed a particular sin, because, thereby, suspicion might easily arise that he had actually concealed a sin.[805]

2. As a general rule it is allowed to speak vaguely of sins heard in the confessional in such a manner that there is no danger of recognizing the person, and no suspicion is aroused against any persons. In this, however, scandal to lay people is to be carefully avoided, for they readily believe that speech of this kind is a violation of the seal, and may, thereby, be deterred from approaching the confessional; nor should one be too easily persuaded that there is no fear of any danger in the matter. Confessors, therefore, should not be too ready to talk much about what they have heard in the confessional; for such talk, when often indulged in, is not quite free from the danger of a slip beyond what is permissible and of awakening suspicions in the hearers. Indeed, before laymen such talk must be altogether avoided.[806]

No violation of the seal is, therefore, in question: (_a_) when the confessor says that “Titus confessed to him”; only Titus must not then have come to him secretly, for from this circumstance it might be inferred that he had a bad conscience; (_b_) when he praises the conscience of a penitent; but he must not, on account of possible circumstances, awaken thereby the suspicion that others, who confessed to him at the same time, have bad consciences; for it might be that if he were questioned concerning another penitent, he could not maintain the same tone of praise.[807] (_c_) If, immediately after absolution, before the penitent leaves the confessional, he speaks to him of what he has then and there heard, for though the Sacrament has been administered, the judicial act still morally continues.[808] (_d_) If he speaks to the penitent during confession of his sins of another confession, for, _in actu confessionis_, the penitent has no right to the preservation of the seal; but even this the confessor should not do without reason, for it is troublesome to many penitents. (_e_) When he prays for a penitent, even if he only knows him through the confessional, or treats him more leniently (or otherwise) on account of the state of his soul learnt in the confessional; when he makes use of knowledge acquired in the confessional in order to ask learned and experienced confessors for advice,[809] or to perfect his own work in the confessional, to be able to question better, to instruct better, and more efficaciously to watch over those committed to his charge.

The confessor does not violate the seal by saying that a certain vice is prevalent in some place, town, or parish when this place or parish is of considerable size (St. Alphonsus assumes three thousand Catholics as the population) and when it is a question of vices which are public, and no new defamation arises. On the other hand, it would be a violation of the seal if (_a_) by this statement concerning the sins, or by the manner of it, the parish, etc., were defamed, and (_b_), in any case, if the place were small. Hard and fast limits cannot be laid down to determine when a serious breach of the seal takes place, and when such revelations would be quite permissible; each case must be carefully considered and weighed, in order to learn if any, or a grave, or only a slight, violation is in question. A preacher, therefore, has a right to speak against vices which are secretly very prevalent in a parish, and if he has obtained his knowledge of them outside the confessional, he can speak of them with still greater freedom; but he should always employ a wise caution, so as not to awaken suspicions injurious to those who confess to him.[810]

In deciding whether violation of the seal of the confession is committed when a confessor says that he has heard a grave sin in the confessional from a religious of some particular Order, without designating the individual, the following circumstances must be considered: (_a_) whether, from the nature of the sin referred to, defamation of the Order results or not; (_b_) before what persons the statement was made, as this circumstance usually determines the quality of the defamation; (_c_) whether, from the statement itself, or from the circumstances, suspicion falls upon the occupants of a few houses. From this it can be inferred if a grave violation of the seal, or a slight one, or none at all, has taken place; but it is very unlikely that no violation of the seal at all has been committed by such a communication. The confessor of a convent would, accordingly, break the seal, if, while preaching in the convent, he should signalize a particular sin of a nun, or of that convent, which he knew only through the confessional. On the other hand, he would not break it if he were to speak generally of defects which usually occur, or may occur, in all convents; otherwise a priest who heard confessions in a convent could never preach there, and such a prohibition would be contrary to the general usage.[811] If the confessor knows through the confessional that snares are being prepared for him, he may, under some pretext, go away, or provide for his safety, if by so doing the sin confessed does not become known, nor any detriment ensues to the penitent by which the confessional would be rendered odious; if, however, he cannot, without breaking the seal, escape or evade the snares prepared for him, nor avoid an objective sacrilege, he must rather endure or permit his death and the sacrilege than break the seal. Nevertheless, he can, and must, exhort and bind the penitent in the confessional to give him permission to make use of this knowledge.[812]

It is not allowed to Superiors to make use of knowledge gained in the confessional in the external government of those under them, or to adopt any course of action which is in any way odious to the penitent, or which would make the confessional odious. Hence it is not allowed to a Superior, in consequence of knowledge obtained through the confessional, to alter an arrangement which he has once made, or which he had determined upon only in his mind; but the case may occur in which he may inform the penitent in the confessional that he had intended to make certain arrangements, but that he now begs his permission to recede from this intention.[813]

Accordingly, it is never allowed to a confessor to remove from his office a subordinate whom he knows through the confessional to be unfit for it, to deprive him of his vote at an election, to forbid him the Sacraments, to withdraw from him any tokens of good-will formerly shown, to look at him askance, to take from him keys which he formerly held or to hide those which he was in the habit of leaving about, etc. But if the confessor obtained this information otherwise than in the confessional, he may make use of the knowledge otherwise obtained; but then this information must really move him to his course of action just as if he had had no knowledge of the unworthiness of the subordinate through the confessional.[814]

Where it is customary to give a ticket to testify that confession has been made, the confessor must confine himself to stating merely that he has heard the confession, and he must not state that he has given absolution to the penitent; for if he invariably attested that the penitent had been absolved, he would be committing himself to a lie, in cases where he had not absolved; if, again, he testified to having absolved those whom he had absolved, and to not having absolved others to whom he had refused absolution, he would, indirectly, violate the seal of the confessional.

And if the confessor should refuse the ticket to an ill-disposed penitent who had made a sacramental confession, he would also violate the seal in the following cases: (_a_) where the penitent asks for this ticket outside the confessional, and (_b_) when it is given to all penitents, or when it is demanded by the penitent’s Superior, as at Easter time, for example. But if the penitent had no intention at all of making a sacramental confession, but only made pretense of confession in order to procure his ticket, for instance, in order to escape punishment from a teacher, or to contract a marriage, the ticket must be refused to him.[815]

If a confessor knows only through the confessional the bad state of a man’s conscience, he must not on that account refuse to hear his confession; he would only be allowed to do so if he had previously, from another motive, resolved never to hear his confession again, because such a refusal would make the confessional odious both to the penitent and to others who should come to hear of the confessor’s behavior.[816]

But how is a confessor to behave who learns from the confession of an unmarried woman who is near death that she is pregnant, this fact being quite unknown to others? Here may be question of the Baptism of the child after the death of the mother, before it is born. If a month has passed since conception, the confessor must induce the penitent to make known her condition, after confession, to some other person, to her mother, perhaps, or to the doctor (if the latter is a good Catholic, or a believer) in order that, after her death, the child may be at once brought into the world and baptized; for she must prefer the Baptism of the child, as a higher good, to her own reputation. If she refuses to disclose the matter, the confessor should induce her to communicate it to him outside confession, in order that he may inform her parents and the doctor of it after her death. But here great caution is necessary, lest others should be led to believe that he is breaking the seal. Hence he should persuade the sick person to make a written statement of the case, if she is able to do so, or he can do it for her; she should then give it sealed to a third person who is to open it immediately after her death.

If she will not consent to this plan, the confessor should abstain from pressing her great responsibility in case she should be _invincibiliter_ ignorant of it, or, perhaps, be persuaded that the fœtus will not survive her; for otherwise, in his endeavor to save the soul of the fœtus, he would incur the risk of ruining both souls, that of the mother and that of the child. But absolution can be given to the sick person unless she is undoubtedly ill disposed—which will seldom be the case. Finally, if the confessor knows the condition of the sick person only through the confessional and cannot obtain her permission to make it known, he must maintain perpetual silence, come what may. For the duty of the seal does not cease with the life of the penitent.[817]

As the binding force of the seal exists only for the benefit of the penitent, the penitent may cancel or modify this obligation, but he alone has this power. This permission must, however, be given quite voluntarily. If the penitent has thus given permission to break the seal in some point, this permission does not extend to the revelation of his accomplices and others; the law of universal charity and of justice (for instance, preservation of a good name) still remains intact, and binds the more strictly the more probability there is of the Sacrament being made odious by any suspicion.