Review for Religious

Review for Religious
1943 May

WHEN a Catholic goes to confession and tells the priest all the secret sins and defects of his life, he realizes that the knowledge of the faults which he is imparting to his confessor will remain just as hidden from others as though he had spoken to God alone. Many theologians used to assert that the knowledge of the sins confessed is possessed by the confessor only as God. As man, he knows nothing of them. Though many other theologians disagreed with this way of stating the case, all conceded that, since the confessor has received this knowledge as the representative of God, it is now beyond the scope of human relations. The priest possesses it as incommunicable knowledge which must be buried forever in the secret vaults of his memory.

Since the earliest days of the Church all theologians have taught that the confessor must suffer anything, even the most horrible type of death, rather than violate his obligation of keeping secret all sacramental knowledge. The seal of confession binds in every imaginable set of circumstances. Even though a priest, by violating the seal, could prevent the outbreak of a prolonged, devastating, world wide war, he would, nevertheless, still be bound to absolute secrecy. In other words, a confessor is never permitted to reveal knowledge guarded by the seal, no matter how great the good which such a revelation would effect. There are no exceptions to this rule. If even one exception were allowed, the faithful would not approach the Sacrament of Penance with the same freedom and confidence. Penitents in general, and especially hardened sinners, would entertain the fear that their sins might one day be revealed. By preventing such evil effects, the excluding of any and every exception works to the common spiritual good of all Christians and greatly outweighs any accidental beneficial results which might follow in this or that particular case from the revelation of a sacramental confession.

The seal of confession, then, is the obligation of abstaining from all use of sacramental knowledge, if the use of that knowledge would either betray the penitent or render him suspect. Hence, the confessor is obliged to maintain the strictest silence concerning all that he learns in the Sacrament of Penance, when the discussion of such matter would even remotely risk disclosing the penitent and his sin. The obligation of the seal requires even more than this. The priest must refrain from making use of anything learned in confession, if the use of such knowledge would in any way whatsoever tend to the detriment of the Sacrament.

The subject-matter of the seal consists, in general, of all sins, defects and everything else of a confidential nature manifested in a sacramental confession. It includes all that the penitent rightly or wrongly confesses as sin. All mortal sins, then, even though they be notorious, and all venial sins, even the slightest, are matter of the seal. But more than this. The subject matter of the seal embraces all remarks and explanations made by the penitent with the intention of perfecting the self-accusation, whether or not the points mentioned are necessary or useful or wholly superfluous for the proper understanding of the case. If, then, the penitent reveals to the priest temptations which he has experienced or evil tendencies against which he must struggle, the confessor is obliged to keep this knowledge strictly to himself. The same is true with regard to the description of the circumstances in which the sins occurred.

If, for example, a penitent mentions that the murder which he has committed took place at a certain gasoline station, or if he discloses the manner in which the murder was perpetrated, these bits of information also would be safe-guarded by the seal.

What is to be said of the physical or mental defects which, in one way or another, come to the attention of the confessor during the course of the confession? Natural deficiencies must be considered matter of the seal either if they are manifested in order to explain some sin or if they are secret defects. Even though these latter are not mentioned by the penitent but are accidentally learned by the confessor, the priest must maintain sacramental secrecy in their regard. It is clear, then, that such traits as a tendency to avarice or anger or other secret moral weaknesses are subject matter of the seal.

Though the subject-matter of the seal is very extensive, there is, nevertheless, certain knowledge acquired in sacramental confession which does not fall under the seal. In this category belong statements made clearly by way of digression, which in no way pertain to the sins submitted to the Power of the Keys. An example of this is the remark: "Father, my new home is finished now. Will you bless it when you have time?" The knowledge thus imparted is given extra-sacramentally. That one comes to confession is of itself a public fact to which the confessor is a witness.

Hence, it is not matter of the seal. The same is true regarding the length of time which a penitent remains in the confessional. If, however, a man approaches a priest in secret to go to confession, his coming to the Sacrament is not public but secret. Since knowledge of this secret fact could easily give rise to suspicion of serious sin, it becomes matter of the seal. Also, if a man were to spend an unusually long time in the confessional, prudence would prompt the priest not to reveal this, for fear that it might lead others to suspect that this penitent had a large number of sins to tell.

Let us suppose that a thief were to kneel at the feet of a priest and recount various sins, but with no intention of receiving the Sacrament of Penance. He has placed himself in these circumstances merely to have a better opportunity for picking the pockets of this pious priest. In this case the confessor would in no wise be bound to sacramental secrecy, because the obligation of the seal arises only from a confession which is sincerely made with a view to receiving absolution. (Whether or not the absolution is actually imparted makes no difference with regard to the obligation of the seal. ) As long as there is the intention, then, to receive the Sacrament of Penance, the obligation of the seal is present in spite of the fact that the penitent lacks the proper dispositions or the priest lacks faculties for hearing confessions. A sacramental confession, therefore, and only a sacramental confession imposes the obligation of the seal.

But, one may ask, what if a man were to go to a priest who is vesting for Mass, and, in order to put an end to his worrying, explain certain severe temptations which he has just experienced? Is this to be deemed sacramental confession? It is sacramental on one condition: namely, that the man desires the priest to give him absolution, in case he judges it necessary or advisable. If, on the other hand, a person confesses his sins by letter to a priest who is in another town, there would be no sacramental secrecy involved. Why is this? The confession, in order to be sacramental, must be made to a priest who is actually present. What if one approached a priest and, with no intention at all of going to confession, revealed some secret, prefacing his disclosure with the words: "Father, I am telling you this under the seal of confession"? Would this priest then be bound by the seal? No, he would not. But let us suppose that he readily agreed to receive the communication under the secrecy of confession. Even in this case he would not be held by the seal. The reason is clear. Since no sacramental confession is made, not even an incipient one, this secret cannot be protected by the seal of the Sacrament.

What is required to constitute a transgression against the obligation of the seal? Obviously the seal is violated when one reveals matter protected by sacramental secrecy and at the same time in some way designates the penitent— supposing, of course, that the latter has granted no explicit permission to disclose this knowledge. Such illicit revelation may be either direct or indirect. For direct violation there must be a clear manifestation both of matter of the seal and of the identity of the penitent concerned. If, for example, a priest were to make known the fact that John Jones committed a murder (and he is aware of this only from Jones' confession), he would undoubtedly be guilty of a direct violation of the seal. But what if that priest did not mention Jones by name, but simply declared that the wealthiest man in this town (and Jones is known as such) committed a murder? This also would go directly counter to the seal. Or again, if that priest were to state that the first man who came to him to confession today confessed the crime of murder, and if his hearers knew that Jones was that first penitent, the seal would be violated directly.

Not only revealing mortal sins but divulging even venial sins can constitute a direct violation of the seal. If, for example, the confessor asserts that James Brown confessed a sin of lying or that he is guilty of serious sins or of many venial sins, he is directly transgressing against the sacred obligation to secrecy. The sins need not be named specifically.

Up to this point we have treated only of the direct violation of the seal, A violation is said to be indirect when it causes the danger of manifesting the penitent and his sins or at least of exciting suspicion in his regard. This danger may be created by what the confessor says or does or even by what he omits to do. A confessor would indirectly violate the seal, if he made known the penance which he imposed on a certain penitent, unless of course the penance were very light, for example, two Hail Mary's. Provided that his way of acting could be observed by others, a confessor would sin against the obligation of the seal if, after confession, he were to give the penitent a severe look or if he failed to treat him in as friendly a manner as he did before. Moreover, a confessor violates the seal indirectly, if during the confession he argues with the penitent in a somewhat loud voice, or if he repeats the sins confessed in a tone that risks revealing the faults to others.

In passing we may remark that eavesdroppers who try to hear what the penitent is saying in confession or those who kneel very close to the confessional in order to learn what is going on sin against the seal, even though they reveal to others nothing of what they manage to overhear. One thus listening to a penitent's confession is causing the revelation of the penitent and of his sins to one who has no right to this knowledge, that is, to himself. This is a direct violation of the seal. However, if one happens to be standing some distance from the confessional, he is not obliged to move away or to stop his ears, though he may accidentally overhear one who is confessing too loudly. (Nevertheless, whatever is thus overheard must be guarded under the seal. )

Let us now consider the seal in its wider interpretation. The seal, taken in this meaning, is violated indirectly when, on the one hand, there is no danger of either disclosing or exciting suspicion about the penitent and his sin, but, on the other hand, harm or displeasure to the penitent arises from the use of sacramental knowledge. In instituting the Sacrament of Penance, Christ imposed the obligation of the seal on all those who share in confessional knowledge. He did this in order to preclude the aversion towards the Sacrament which the lack of such security would occasion in the hearts of the faithful. Christ desired that no use be made of confessional knowledge which would cause injury to the Sacrament. In order to safeguard the observance of the seal in the strict sense, the Church forbids the confessor to employ sacramental knowledge in a way that would displease the penitent. Such an action of the priest, even though there were no danger of betraying the penitent, would, nevertheless, violate the seal as it is understood in its wider meaning.

We mentioned above that the seal, in its broader interpretation, is violated when "harm or displeasure to the penitent arises from the use of sacramental knowledge." What do we mean by the words ' 'harm or displeasure"? We mean injury either in body, in soul, or in external possessions. We mean whatever would redound to the dishonor or discredit of the penitent; whatever would inconvenience him or annoy, shame, or sadden him. We mean, in a word, whatever would make the penitent even slightly regret his confession. Hence, the use of confessional knowledge which would cause any of these effects must be counted illicit. If such use were permissible, penitents would find the Sacrament of Penance less desirable and less easy to approach. Thus they would be deterred, at least to some extent, from going to confession. They would not find in this Sacrament the freedom and the consolation which they may rightly expect.

Would not the use of sacramental knowledge which we brand as illicit become lawful if the penitent himself were unaware of the fact that he was being injured or legislated against because of what is known only through the Sacrament? Let us imagine, for example, that a particular penitent is deprived of some office or that he is denied some privilege because through confession he is known to be unworthy of these. Is such use permissible, provided the penitent does not know and will never learn that what he told his confessor is thus being employed to his disadvantage? No, such use is never allowed. The penitent's ignorance of the fact that his confessor is thus using sacramental knowledge would in no way render such use licit. It is not necessary that the penitent know that knowledge obtained in a sacramental confession is being employed to injure him. If a certain use of sacramental knowledge would be displeasing to the penitent if it were known, such use must be placed in the category of forbidden actions. Let us suppose, for instance, that a priest after confession, when alone with his penitent, shows himself less congenial or notably more brusque towards the penitent. Though the penitent does not advert to the fact that the confessor is acting thus because of what he heard in confession, the priest sins against the seal, taken in the wide sense.

The confessor must give no sign that he is conscious of what was mentioned in the Sacrament of Penance. He is, moreover, forbidden to speak to his penitent outside confession of any sin which the latter confessed. In this case, it is true, the revelation of no secret would be involved, but such a way of acting would ordinarily be displeasing to the faithful. Once the penitent has retired from the confessional, the sacramental judgment is at an end, and the priest in now speaking to the penitent of what transpired during that judgment, is acting against the reverence and the liberty due the Sacrament. One may readily see, then, that the sacramental seal binds more strictly than any other type of secret.

Other secrets, unlike the sacramental seal, would not be violated, if those who had the hidden knowledge in common were to discuss it among themselves. At times penitents approach their confessor outside confession and ask him about the penance which be imposed on them, or about some bit of advice which he gave, or about the gravity of a certain sin which they confessed. Does the seal prevent the confessor from answering these questions? No, it does not, because by the very fact that the penitent begins speaking of these matters he grants permission to the priest to talk about them with him. Ordinarily, however, his permission is limited to a discussion of the matter which the penitent has broached and may not be extended to all the sins confessed.

Incidentally we may mention that it is possible for a penitent to sin by revealing, without a good reason, the advice, the penance, and so forth, given by the confessor, if such a revelation would redound to the priest's discredit. Those who hear the penitent's comments do not know the reasons which prompted the confessor to impart such advice or to impose so severe a penance, and the priest is powerless to speak in his own defense. The penitent, moreover, should be on his guard against revealing anything of what transpires during the confession, if that would lower the Sacrament in the esteem of others.

May the confessor, without the penitent's leave, mention to him during the course of a confession sins confessed on previous occasions? Yes, this may be done, provided there is a sufficient reason for calling these past sins to the attention of the penitent. The priest may deem it advisable to refer to some sin of the past, in order to become better acquainted with the state of this penitent's soul and so be able to direct him more effectively. Far from objecting to this, the penitent should be happy that his confessor is so solicitous about his advancement in the spiritual life. Moreover, even when a penitent leaves the confessional but returns immediately, the confessor may discuss with him both the sins just confessed and the sins of previous confessions. Some priests give a few words of advice after having imparted the absolution. This is permissible, because, though the Sacrament is completed, the sacramental judgment, morally speaking, still continues.

The penitent may, of course, give the confessor leave to speak outside confession about certain sins submitted to the Power of the Keys, and if this is done, the confessor may freely discuss those sins. It is important to note that this permission, in order to be valid, must be granted by the penitent not only expressly but also with entire freedom.

If the permission were to be extorted by threats or fear or importunate pleadings, it would be worthless, and the confessor who acted upon it would violate the seal. The same is true with regard to permission that is merely presumed or interpretative. In this matter such a permission must be counted as no permission at all.

When there is question of any use of confessional knowledge which would render the Sacrament more difficult or irksome, that knowledge must be kept just as secretly as though it did not exist. However, besides the case in which the penitent's permission has been freely and unmistakably granted, there is another perfectly licit use of sacramental knowledge. In general, that use is licit which would in no wise deter the faithful from frequenting the Sacrament, even though such use were publicly announced as lawful. When would this requirement be verified? This condition would be fulfilled, if a certain use of sacramental knowledge were to involve neither the direct nor indirect violation of the seal nor the slightest trace of displeasure to penitents in general.

We may summarize in the following way the scope of use which is lawful. The use of confessional knowledge is permissible: (1) within the limits of matters which belong exclusively to one's own conscience; (2) outside these limits, in external actions, provided it is certain that there is no danger at all of revealing the penitent and his sin or of displeasing him or of making the Sacrament in general less approachable. A confessor, therefore, is allowed to pray for a particular penitent who is known from confession to be gravely tempted. A priest may meditate on his penitents and their faults, in order to be able to advise them more perfectly. Moreover, a confessor, who has learned through confessions which he has heard that certain games have frequently caused spiritual or temporal ruin, may allow himself to be guided by this knowledge in avoiding these forms of amusement. A priest may show greater kindness and consideration for a penitent who he knows from confession is severely afflicted, provided of course the confessor's way of acting would not engender suspicion in the minds' of observers. Finally, it is well to remember that, if a priest knows about a certain person's recent sins before he hears his confession, that individual's act of confessing those sins to this priest does not place the confessor's previous knowledge under the seal. The previous knowledge was and still remains extra-sacramental. The confessor, however, must exercise great prudence in the use of such information.

This, then, is the common teaching of theologians regarding the obligation of the seal of confession. Just as our divine Lord, "by the pardon of His loving mercy, entirely wipes away and quite forgets the sins which through human weakness we have committed," so the minister of the Sacrament of Penance reverently guards, even to the shedding of his blood, everything that is manifested to him in the secrecy of the confessional.