Adsum

February 2005

Knowledge Gained from Confession

Father Connell Answers Moral Questions
by Very Rev. Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R., S.T.D., L.L.D., L.H.D.

Question A: In a country behind the Iron Curtain a priest learns from the confession of a man who is functioning as a priest that actually this latter is not a genuine priest, but a Communist spy, masquerading as a priest in order to do harm to the Church. May the confessor take any action to prevent the great harm that is being done by the bogus priest? In the supposition that the confessor is himself accustomed to go to confession to the pretended priest, must or may he continue to do so?

Question B: What may or must a priest do if he learns from confession that the penitent has poisoned the wine which the priest himself is about to use for the celebration of Mass?

Answer A: These questions, although they are classified under the general heading of the seal of confession, pertain rather to the use of knowledge gained from confession. Cappello designates the use of such knowledge as violatio sigilli imlirecta. late et minus proprie accepta (De Sacramentis [Rome, 1938], II, n. 911). The Church’s legislation on this matter, based on the divine law, is thus expressed in the Code: “The use of knowledge derived from confession, when it entails a hardship to the penitent, is absolutely forbidden to the confessor, even when there is no danger of revelation” (Can. 890 par. 1). Even if the penitent were unaware that the confessor is using information acquired from his confession, it would still be unlawful for the confessor to use it if some hardship (gravmen) is thereby imposed on the penitent or some benefit is prevented from coming to him. The penitent may be unreasonable in judging as a hardship some occurrence which actually tends to his spiritual welfare, such as an action on the part of the confessor that would prevent him from committing sin; yet, even in this event the confessor is bound to abstain from such an action.

In the first case proposed above, the case of the bogus priest, the confessor’s first duty on learning the state of affairs is to forbid the man to continue functioning as a priest, and to command him to abstain from all Communistic activity. However, presuming that the confession was made in ordine ad sacramentalem absolutionem recipiendam (Cappello, op. cit. n 880), the confessor is bound by the law of the sigillum in its entirety even though the penitent will not promise to observe these conditions, and consequently is denied absolution.

Hence, if the penitent refuses to accept the terms laid down by the Confessor and withdraws without absolution the confessor may do nothing toward restricting the man’s activities against the Church or his pretended sacerdotal ministry. Furthermore, supposing that the real priest is accustomed to go to confession to the imposter and there is reason to believe that this latter would take it amiss if the other desisted from this practice or that discredit would be cast on the supposed integrity of the bogus priest, the genuine priest would not be permitted to discontinue his regular confessions, though he knows that the sacrament of Penance is not being conferred. He himself would be doing nothing intrinsically wrong, and there would be sufficient reason to justify his material cooperation toward the sacrilegious act of the imposter (Cf St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, Rome, 1908], VI, n. 660). In such a case, however, there would surely be no obligation on the part of the real priest, in going to confession to the bogus priest, to tell all his sins; and if he has some grave sin to confess, he must submit it, if possible, to a real priest.

Answer B: Again, we must presuppose that the confessor attempts to persuade the penitent to retract his sinful intention, and either to destroy the poisoned wine himself or to permit the priest to do so. However, if he will not consent, and accordingly departs without absolution, the question arises whether or not the priest may or must celebrate Mass, knowing that the poison is going to kill him, rather than use the information derived from confession. This is a disputed point. Some say that the priest must celebrate Mass, albeit knowing that it will result in his death, if there is danger of revealing the penitent or of displeasing him — even though this latter supposition implies an unreasonable attitude on his part. According to another opinion — the better view, it seems to us — the priest may not use the wine, thus committing suicide, an intrinsically evil act, since the obligation to abstain from using information gained in confession does not include the permission or the duty to perform an intrinsically evil action. In the words of Gury-Ferreres: “God cannot will through the obligation of the seal what is intrinsically wrong” (Gury-Ferreres, Cusus [Barcelona, 1903], II, n. 772). As is evident, the priest would have to manage the affair in such wise as to arouse no suspicion — for example, by dropping the cruet at the Offertory and thus spilling the wine.

Back to February 2005 Newsletter
Back to top

Printed copies of Adsum, a publication by the seminarians of Mater Dei Seminary for the reading enjoyment of friends and benefactors, are sent free of charge to all who request it. Most issues also contain photos of recent events involving the seminarians. If you would like to put on this mailing list, please use this form.