Dist. 21, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 21
Articulus II. De sigillo confessionis.1
Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de sigillo confessionis. Et circa hoc tria quaeruntur.
Primo quaeritur, utrum in aliquo casu liceat confessionem revelare.
Secundo, utrum confitens possit sacerdotem licentiare, ut revelet.
Tertio, utrum illud quod dupliciter novit sacerdos, scilicet per confessionem et per aliam viam, teneatur celare.
Quaestio I. Utrum in aliquo casu liceat confessionem revelare.
Quantum ad primum ostenditur, quod non possit revelare.
1. Augustinus, de Poenitentia, distinctione sexta45: «Sacerdos ante omnia caveat, ne de his qui ei confitentur peccata sua, alicui recitet»23.
2. Item, decretalis edita in Concilio generali de Poenitentiis et remissionibus1a: «Caveat autem sacerdos, ne verbo vel signo vel alio quovis modo prodat aliquatenus peccatorem».
3. Item, hoc videtur ratione: quia peccata in confessione delentur; sed pro peccato, quod Deus remisit, nemo est accusandus: ergo si sacerdos est minister remissionis, non potest accusare vel detegere peccatorem, quin faciat contra officium sacerdotis: ergo omnis talis est deponendus.
4. Item, peccator confitetur sacerdoti, et sacerdos accipit loco Dei; sed Deus peccatum poenitentis occultat et non detegit2a: ergo et sacerdos tenetur occultare.
5. Item, sacerdos, qui audit peccatorem, nescit, utrum dicat sibi verum: ergo nescit, utrum ille sit culpabilis: ergo si nullius peccatum debemus accusare nisi eius, de quo nobis constat: ergo peccatum per confessionem cognitum nullatenus est prodendum.
Contra: 1. Ponatur, quod aliquis iuret dicere verum super aliquo facto; nullus potest nec debet mentiri nec falsum iurare nec peierare sive deierare propter aliquod scandalum evitandum3a: ergo magis debet manifestare quam falsum respondere.
2. Item, ponatur, quod audiat haereticum in confessione, qui nolit poenitere, sed alios corrumpere; magis debet fidem Christo servare sacerdos quam ipsi haeretico: ergo magis debet confessionem illius detegere, quam permittat, eum gregem Domini corrumpere.
3. Item, ponatur, quod sacerdos sciat per confessionem, inter duos esse contractam affinitatem per coitum fornicarium, et post eos velle contrahere in facie Ecclesiae; si sacerdos iungit istos, cum isti peccent mortaliter, consentit peccato eorum: ergo mortaliter peccat: ergo si non debet sceleris alieni fieri particeps, debet hoc manifestare. Similis casus est in decano4a, qui audivit confessionem habentium irregularitatem, si debet eos praesentare ordinandos ab episcopo, vel revelare confessionem.
4. Item, ponatur, quod aliquis prior de ordine monachorum confiteatur abbati, et quamdiu est in prioratu, habet occasionem trahentem ad peccatum a quo5a non vult desistere; si habet curam animae suae, tenetur inde illum amovere; sed amovendo innotescit, ipsum peccasse: ergo videtur, quod confessio possit aliquo modo revelari.
Conclusio.
Pro nullo scandalo, vel causa confessio a sacerdote est revelanda.
Respondeo: Ad hoc voluerunt aliqui distinguere, quod dupliciter potest quis sacerdoti confiteri: aut tanquam poenitens et volens a peccato absolvi, et tunc sigillum confessionis claudit omne quod dicit, sine apertione; aut ita, quod non vult a peccato desistere, ut si revelat propositum periurandi, vel occidendi hominem, vel aliquod tale, et tunc non tenetur sub sigillo confessionis claudere, sed potest dicere ei6a qui potest prodesse et non obesse.
Sed quamvis illud videatur dici probabiliter, tamen, cum mandatum et institutio de omni culpa dicat generaliter7a, et poenitens peccatum suum non tanquam homini, sed tanquam Deo revelet, et nesciat sacerdos, utrum ille verum dicat, an eum seducat, nisi noverit per aliam personam; nullatenus debet manifestare personam illam, propter hoc quod sigillum confessionis diligentissime est custodiendum propter scandalum, ne poenitens retrahatur a confessione. Propter quod etiam miraculum magnum in quadam navi contigit, ut narratur de quodam, qui peccata sua publice confessus est in mari, et postquam ventum est ad portum, nemo novit quod dixerat. Unde sacerdos taliter debet noscere, quasi non audierit et quasi non noverit. Et propter hoc dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Gregorius, et habetur in littera8a, pro nullo scandalo est confessio revelanda.
Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de iuramento, dicendum, quod secure potest dicere: nescio; nec periurat, quia iuramentum non obligat illum ad dicendum nisi illud quod novit ut homo, non ut Deus, quia supra Deum nullus est. Unde pro nullo praecepto obedientiae, pro nullo iuramento, vel periculo debet illud dicere.
Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de haeretico, dicendum, quod debet tacere nec per9a illam cognitionem aliquid dicere specialiter; potest tamen sine revelatione confessionis superiori dicere: vigila super oves, quia lupus est in grege, si probabiliter videt, illum qui confessus est, verum dixisse, et periculum ovium imminere. Potest etiam et debet esse sollicitus sine revelatione confessionis, quomodo sciat et
gregi dominico provideat; et tunc Domino suo etiam confitenti fidem, quam debet, servat.
Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de presbytero, dicendum, quod presbyter debet dissuadere ei qui est confessus, et similiter decanus clerico; et si ille petat, debet differre, et nisi ille cogatur per superiorem, vel per scandalum populi, non debet nec matrimonium tale benedicere nec clericos praesentare. Ex tunc autem potest, quia non ipse facit, sed Ecclesia; et Ecclesia iudicat secundum ea quae exterius sunt. Consilium tamen est, quod et sacerdos et decanus faciant per vicarium, tum propter confusionem illorum occultam, tum etiam propter criminis horrorem. Si tamen ipse faciat, non credo, quod peccet, dum non ultro se offerat, sed coactus sustineat.
Ad 4. Ad illud quod quaeritur de subdito, qui non vult a culpa cessare; dicendum, quod superior debet ei persuadere voluntariam cessionem, et quod ipse petat absolvi ab onere officii. Quod si non vult, non debet eum absolvere, sed debet eum sustinere, nisi sit talis religio, in qua subditi possint transmutari et transferri sine nota infamiae.
I. Iure naturali, divino et ecclesiastico confessarius obligatur strictissimo debito sigilli sive secreti observandi de omnibus in confessione sacramentali auditis, quorum revelatio confessionem posset reddere odiosam. Pauci quidem antiqui quasdam exceptiones, praesertim in causa haereseos, statuere voluerunt; sed hunc errorem communissima doctrina semper detestata est. Praeter ea quae in Can. Omnis utriusque (hic fundam. 2. citato) stabilita sunt, notanda est quaedam propositio, decreto s. Inquisitionis 18 Nov. 1682 «omnino prohibita», quae ob gravem rationem licitum esse asseruit quendam «usum scientiae ex confessione acquisitae cum gravamine poenitentis, seclusa quacumque revelatione, atque in casu, quo multo maius gravamen eiusdem poenitentis ex non-usu sequeretur». Obligatio autem sigilli similiter afficit etiam interpretem aliosque, qui materiam sigilli norunt; tamen de quibusdam huiusmodi casibus dubitatur, utrum sit proprie obligatio sigilli, vel tantum secreti naturalis, licet strictissimi. — Solutionem plurium dubiorum et casuum vide apud Henricum Gand., Quodl. 8. q. 29. 31. et recentiores moralistas.
De 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 19. m. 2. a. 1. et 2. § 1. — Scot., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. in utroque Scripto hic q. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1; Suppl. q. 11. a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 1. 2. — De hac et 2 seqq. qq. Durand., hic q. 3; Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.
II. In 2. quaestione affirmanda, dummodo adhibeantur cautelae ad vitandum scandalum, communius theologi consentiunt. Sed Scot. (loc. cit. n. 18.), cui favent Alex. Hal. et Durand., docet, audita formaliter in confessione ne de licentia quidem poenitentis revelari posse, nisi hic explicite protestetur, talia se dicere vel dixisse ut extra confessionem. S. Bonav. solummodo in casu, ubi timetur scandalum, licentiam datam restringere videtur.
De hac quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 2. § 2. — S. Thom., loc. cit. a. 2; Suppl. loc. cit. a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med. hanc et seq. q. tangit loc. cit. q. 3. 4, et a. 5. q. 1-4.
III. Quoad 3. quaestionem tenuit opinionem 1. in corp. relatam Guliel. Antissiod.; sed posteriores theologi cum Ss. Bonav. et Thoma 3. opinionem sequuntur.
De 3. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 3. — S. Thom., loc. cit. a. 3; Suppl. loc. cit. a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2.
---
Article II. On the seal of confession.1
Consequently, as regards the second article, inquiry is made concerning the seal of confession. And about this three things are asked.
First it is asked, whether in any case it is licit to reveal a confession.
Second, whether the one confessing can license the priest to reveal it.
Third, whether that which a priest knows in two ways — namely through confession and through another route — he is bound to keep concealed.
Question I. Whether in any case it is licit to reveal a confession.
As regards the first, it is shown that he cannot reveal it.
1. Augustine, On Penance, distinction six45: «Let the priest above all things take care that he recount to no one concerning those who confess their sins to him»23.
2. Likewise, the decretal published in the General Council, On Penances and Remissions1a: «But let the priest take care that he in no way betray the sinner by word or by sign or by any other manner whatsoever».
3. Likewise, this seems [to follow] by reason: for sins are blotted out in confession; but for a sin which God has remitted, no one is to be accused: therefore if the priest is the minister of remission, he cannot accuse or expose the sinner without acting against the office of a priest: therefore every such priest is to be deposed.
4. Likewise, the sinner confesses to the priest, and the priest receives in the place of God; but God conceals the sin of the penitent and does not expose it2a: therefore the priest too is bound to conceal it.
5. Likewise, the priest who hears the sinner does not know whether he tells him the truth: therefore he does not know whether that man is culpable: therefore if we ought to accuse the sin of no one except him of whom it is established for us [that he is guilty]: therefore a sin known through confession is in no way to be betrayed.
On the contrary: 1. Let it be supposed that someone swears to tell the truth concerning some deed; no one can or ought to lie or swear falsely or perjure or forswear himself in order to avoid some scandal3a: therefore he ought rather to make [it] known than to answer falsely.
2. Likewise, let it be supposed that he hears a heretic in confession, who is unwilling to repent, but [wishes] to corrupt others; the priest ought rather to keep faith with Christ than with the heretic himself: therefore he ought rather to expose that man's confession than to permit him to corrupt the Lord's flock.
3. Likewise, let it be supposed that a priest knows through confession that between two people an affinity has been contracted by fornicatory intercourse, and that afterwards they wish to contract [marriage] in the face of the Church; if the priest joins them, since they sin mortally, he consents to their sin: therefore he sins mortally: therefore if he ought not to become a participant in another's crime, he ought to make this known. A like case is in the dean4a, who has heard the confession of those having an irregularity, [namely] whether he ought to present them to the bishop as candidates for ordination, or to reveal the confession.
4. Likewise, let it be supposed that some prior of an order of monks confesses to the abbot, and as long as he is in the priorate he has an occasion drawing [him] to a sin from which5a he is unwilling to desist; if [the abbot] has the care of his soul, he is bound to remove him from there; but by removing him it becomes known that he himself has sinned: therefore it seems that a confession can in some way be revealed.
Conclusion.
For no scandal, nor cause, is a confession to be revealed by a priest.
I respond: On this point some wished to distinguish, that one can confess to a priest in two ways: either as a penitent and willing to be absolved from sin, and then the seal of confession closes everything that he says, without any disclosure; or in such a way that he does not wish to desist from sin, as if he reveals a purpose of perjuring himself, or of killing a man, or some such thing, and then [the priest] is not bound to close [it] under the seal of confession, but can tell it to one6a who can do good and not harm.
But although that seems to be said with probability, nevertheless, since the command and the institution speak generally7a of every fault, and the penitent reveals his sin not as to a man, but as to God, and the priest does not know whether the man tells the truth or deceives him, unless he should know it through another person; he ought in no way to make that person known, for this reason: that the seal of confession is to be most diligently guarded on account of scandal, lest the penitent be drawn back from confession. On account of which also a great miracle happened on a certain ship, as is related of a certain man who publicly confessed his sins at sea, and after they came to port, no one knew what he had said. Whence the priest ought so to know [it] as if he had not heard and as if he did not know. And on account of this it must be said that, as Gregory says, and is contained in the text8a, for no scandal is a confession to be revealed.
To 1. To that, then, which is objected concerning the oath, it must be said that he can safely say: I do not know; nor does he perjure himself, because the oath does not oblige him to tell anything except that which he knows as a man, not as God, since above God there is no one. Whence for no precept of obedience, for no oath, or peril, ought he to tell it.
To 2. To that which is objected concerning the heretic, it must be said that he ought to be silent and to say nothing in particular through9a that knowledge; he can, however, without revealing the confession, say to a superior: watch over the sheep, for there is a wolf in the flock, if he probably sees that the man who confessed has told the truth, and that peril threatens the sheep. He can also and ought to be solicitous, without revealing the confession, how he may know [it] and
provide for the Lord's flock; and then he keeps faith both with his Lord and also with the one confessing, [the faith] which he owes.
To 3. To that which is objected concerning the presbyter, it must be said that the presbyter ought to dissuade him who has confessed, and likewise the dean [ought to dissuade] the cleric; and if that one asks [for the marriage], he ought to defer it, and unless that one is compelled by a superior, or by the scandal of the people, he ought neither to bless such a marriage nor to present the clerics. But from then on he can, because it is not he himself who does it, but the Church; and the Church judges according to those things which are external. Nevertheless the counsel is that both the priest and the dean should act through a vicar, both on account of the hidden confusion of those people, and also on account of the horror of the crime. If, however, he himself does it, I do not believe that he sins, provided he does not offer himself unbidden, but bears it under compulsion.
To 4. To that which is asked concerning the subordinate who does not wish to cease from the fault, it must be said that the superior ought to persuade him to a voluntary cession, and that he himself ask to be absolved from the burden of the office. But if he is unwilling, [the superior] ought not to absolve him, but ought to bear with him, unless it be such a religious [order] in which subordinates can be transmuted and transferred without a note of infamy.
I. By natural, divine, and ecclesiastical law the confessor is bound by a most strict obligation to observe the seal or secret concerning all things heard in sacramental confession, the revelation of which could render confession odious. A few of the ancients indeed wished to establish certain exceptions, especially in the case of heresy; but the most common doctrine has always detested this error. Besides those things which are established in the canon Omnis utriusque (cited here, fundam. 2), a certain proposition is to be noted, «altogether prohibited» by a decree of the Holy Inquisition of 18 Nov. 1682, which asserted that, for a grave reason, a certain «use of knowledge acquired from confession, with injury to the penitent, every revelation being set aside, and in the case where a much greater injury to the same penitent would follow from the non-use», was licit. But the obligation of the seal likewise affects also the interpreter and others who know the matter of the seal; nevertheless concerning certain cases of this kind it is doubted whether it is properly an obligation of the seal, or only of a natural secret, albeit a most strict one. — For the solution of several doubts and cases see Henry of Ghent, Quodl. 8, q. 29, 31, and the more recent moralists.
On question 1: Alex. of Hales, Summa p. IV. q. 19. m. 2. a. 1. and 2. § 1. — Scotus, on this and the 2 following questions in both Writings, here q. 2. — St. Thomas, here q. 3. a. 1. quaestiuncula 1; Suppl. q. 11. a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3. a. 1. quaestiuncula 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 4. q. 1. 2. — On this and the 2 following questions, Durandus, here q. 3; Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3.
II. As regards the affirming of the 2nd question, provided that precautions be employed for avoiding scandal, theologians more commonly agree. But Scotus (loc. cit. n. 18.), whom Alex. of Hales and Durandus favor, teaches that what has been heard formally in confession cannot be revealed even by the license of the penitent, unless he here explicitly protests that he says or has said such things as outside of confession. St. Bonaventure seems to restrict the license given only in the case where scandal is feared.
On this question: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. a. 2. § 2. — St. Thomas, loc. cit. a. 2; Suppl. loc. cit. a. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 2. quaestiuncula 1. — Richard of Mediavilla touches this and the following question, loc. cit. q. 3. 4, and a. 5. q. 1-4.
III. As regards the 3rd question, William of Auxerre held the 1st opinion related in the body [of the text]; but later theologians, with Saints Bonaventure and Thomas, follow the 3rd opinion.
On the 3rd question: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. § 3. — St. Thomas, loc. cit. a. 3; Suppl. loc. cit. a. 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 1. quaestiuncula 2.
---
- 1Art. 2. q. 1. Cfr. Benedict. XIV. constitutio Suprema, ubi decernit, poenitentes nomina complicum non debere revelare; constitut. Ubi primum, in qua prohibet confessarios, quod astringant poenitentes ad nomina complicum revelanda. Cfr. etiam ipsius constitut. Ad eradicandam.Art. 2, q. 1. Cf. Benedict XIV, constitution Suprema, where he decrees that penitents are not to reveal the names of accomplices; [and] the constitution Ubi primum, in which he forbids confessors to bind penitents to reveal the names of accomplices. Cf. also his constitution Ad eradicandam.
- 2Vide Daniel 3, 26. seqq. — Inferius pro et possit edd. ut possit; et Et quia sacerdos pro Sacerdos autem.See Daniel 3, 26 ff. — Below, for et possit (and he may be able) the editions [read] ut possit (that he may be able); and Et quia sacerdos (And because the priest) for Sacerdos autem (But the priest).
- 3Cod. F veniam. Mox pro non iniuriam codd. L bb et ei nullam iniuriam (codd. V W Z et ei non iniuriam).Codex F [reads] veniam (pardon). Soon, for non iniuriam (no injury), codices L bb [read] et ei nullam iniuriam (and no injury to him) (codices V W Z [read] et ei non iniuriam, and to him no injury).
- 4Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.See the scholion on question I of this article.
- 5Cap. 2. (correctores Gratiani notant, capitulum hoc esse incerti auctoris; vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 9.). Pro Augustinus edd. Gregorius; sub Augustini nomine similis canon habetur alibi, nempe C. 3. q. 7. c. 7: Sacerdos ut sapiens et perfectus medicus primum sciat curare peccata sua, et postea aliena vulnera detergere et sanare, et non publicare (sumtus ex opere de Salutaribus Documentis, c. 32. olim Augustino attributo, quod autem est Paulini Foroiuliensis sive Aquileiensis).Chapter 2. (The correctors of Gratian note that this chapter is of uncertain authorship; see here the text of the Master, c. 9.) For Augustinus the editions [read] Gregorius; under the name of Augustine a similar canon is found elsewhere, namely C. 3. q. 7. c. 7: Let the priest, as a wise and perfect physician, first know how to cure his own sins, and afterwards to wipe clean and heal the wounds of others, and not to publish them (taken from the work On Salutary Counsels, c. 32, formerly attributed to Augustine, but which is of Paulinus of Forum Iulii or Aquileia).
- 1aExtra lib. V. tit. 38. C. Omnis utriusque sexus (12.).Decretals, book V, title 38, canon Omnis utriusque sexus (12).
- 2aCfr. Ps. 31, 1. et Rom. 4, 7.Cf. Ps. 31, 1 and Rom. 4, 7.
- 3aCfr. supra pag. 86, nota 6. in fine.Cf. above, p. 86, note 6, at the end.
- 4aCodd. F G de decano.Codices F G [read] de decano (concerning the dean).
- 5aCod. F (E primitus) addit tamen, quod cod. G transponit post tenetur. Superius pro et quamdiu cod. U quod quamdiu.Codex F (E originally) adds tamen (nevertheless), which codex G transposes after tenetur (is bound). Above, for et quamdiu (and as long as) codex U [reads] quod quamdiu (that as long as).
- 6aCod. X sed non potest dicere nisi ei, qua lectione redintegratur lectio mutila quorundam codd. sed non potest dicere.Codex X [reads] sed non potest dicere nisi ei (but he cannot tell it except to him), by which reading the mutilated reading of certain codices sed non potest dicere (but he cannot tell) is restored.
- 7aEdd. addunt oppositim. Inferius pro nisi noverit [cod. E sciverit, edd. manifestatum fuerit] per aliam personam; nullatenus [cod. aa nulli] non pauci codd. perperam nisi venerit per illam personam, nullatenus [plures codd. nihilominus, cod. A a secunda manu nihilominus non].The editions add oppositim. Below, for nisi noverit (unless he knows) [codex E sciverit; the editions manifestatum fuerit] per aliam personam; nullatenus [codex aa nulli], not a few codices wrongly [read] nisi venerit per illam personam, nullatenus [several codices nihilominus, codex A by a second hand nihilominus non].
- 8aHic c. 9.Here c. 9.
- 9aMallemus legere propter.We would prefer to read propter (for the sake of). ---