|
Objection 1: It would seem that the priest is not bound in every
case to hide the sins which he knows under the seal of confession.
For, as Bernard says (De Proecep. et Dispens. ii), "that
which is instituted for the sake of charity does not militate against
charity." Now the secret of confession would militate against charity
in certain cases: for instance, if a man knew through confession that
a certain man was a heretic, whom he cannot persuade to desist from
misleading the people; or, in like manner, if a man knew, through
confession, that certain people who wish to marry are related to one
another. Therefore such ought to reveal what they know through
confession.
Objection 2: Further, that which is obligatory solely on account of
a precept of the Church need not be observed, if the commandment be
changed to the contrary. Now the secret of confession was introduced
solely by a precept of the Church. If therefore the Church were to
prescribe that anyone who knows anything about such and such a sin must
make it known, a man that had such knowledge through confession would
be bound to speak.
Objection 3: Further, a man is bound to safeguard his conscience
rather than the good name of another, because there is order in
charity. Now it happens sometimes that a man by hiding a sin injures
his own conscience---for instance, if he be called upon to give
witness of a sin of which he has knowledge through confession, and is
forced to swear to tell the truth---or when an abbot knows through
confession the sin of a prior who is subject to him, which sin would be
an occasion of ruin to the latter, if he suffers him to retain his
priorship, wherefore he is bound to deprive him of the dignity of his
pastoral charge, and yet in depriving him he seem to divulge the secret
of confession. Therefore it seems that in certain cases it is lawful
to reveal a confession.
Objection 4: Further, it is possible for a priest through hearing a
man's confession to be conscious that the latter is unworthy of
ecclesiastical preferment. Now everyone is bound to prevent the
promotion of the unworthy, if it is his business. Since then by
raising an objection he seems to raise a suspicion of sin, and so to
reveal the confession somewhat, it seems that it is necessary sometimes
to divulge a confession.
On the contrary, The Decretal says (De Poenit. et Remiss.,
Cap. Omnis utriusque): "Let the priest beware lest he betray the
sinner, by word, or sign, or in any other way whatever."
Further, the priest should conform himself to God, Whose minister
he is. But God does not reveal the sins which are made known to Him
in confession, but hides them. Neither, therefore, should the
priest reveal them.
I answer that, Those things which are done outwardly in the
sacraments are the signs of what takes place inwardly: wherefore
confession, whereby a man subjects himself to a priest, is a sign of
the inward submission, whereby one submits to God. Now God hides
the sins of those who submit to Him by Penance; wherefore this also
should be signified in the sacrament of Penance, and consequently the
sacrament demands that the confession should remain hidden, and he who
divulges a confession sins by violating the sacrament. Besides this
there are other advantages in this secrecy, because thereby men are
more attracted to confession, and confess their sins with greater
simplicity.
Reply to Objection 1: Some say that the priest is not bound by the
seal of confession to hide other sins than those in respect of which the
penitent promises amendment; otherwise he may reveal them to one who
can be a help and not a hindrance. But this opinion seems erroneous,
since it is contrary to the truth of the sacrament; for just as,
though the person baptized be insincere, yet his Baptism is a
sacrament, and there is no change in the essentials of the sacrament on
that account, so confession does not cease to be sacramental although
he that confesses, does not purpose amendment. Therefore, this
notwithstanding, it must be held secret; nor does the seal of
confession militate against charity on that account, because charity
does not require a man to find a remedy for a sin which he knows not:
and that which is known in confession, is, as it were, unknown,
since a man knows it, not as man, but as God knows it. Nevertheless
in the cases quoted one should apply some kind of remedy, so far as
this can be done without divulging the confession, e.g. by
admonishing the penitent, and by watching over the others lest they be
corrupted by heresy. He can also tell the prelate to watch over his
flock with great care, yet so as by neither word nor sign to betray the
penitent.
Reply to Objection 2: The precept concerning the secret of
confession follows from the sacrament itself. Wherefore just as the
obligation of making a sacramental confession is of Divine law, so
that no human dispensation or command can absolve one therefrom, even
so, no man can be forced or permitted by another man to divulge the
secret of confession. Consequently if he be commanded under pain of
excommunication to be incurred "ipso facto," to say whether he knows
anything about such and such a sin, he ought not to say it, because he
should assume that the intention of the person in commanding him thus,
was that he should say what he knew as man. And even if he were
expressly interrogated about a confession, he ought to say nothing,
nor would he incur the excommunication, for he is not subject to his
superior, save as a man, and he knows this not as a man, but as God
knows it.
Reply to Objection 3: A man is not called upon to witness except as
a man, wherefore without wronging his conscience he can swear that he
knows not, what he knows only as God knows it. In like manner a
superior can, without wronging his conscience, leave a sin unpunished
which he knows only as God knows it, or he may forbear to apply a
remedy, since he is not bound to apply a remedy, except according as
it comes to his knowledge. Wherefore with regard to matters which come
to his knowledge in the tribunal of Penance, he should apply the
remedy, as far as he can, in the same court: thus as to the case in
point, the abbot should advise the prior to resign his office, and if
the latter refuse, he can absolve him from the priorship on some other
occasion, yet so as to avoid all suspicion of divulging the
confession.
Reply to Objection 4: A man is rendered unworthy of ecclesiastical
preferment, by many other causes besides sin, for instance, by lack
of knowledge, age, or the like: so that by raising an objection one
does not raise a suspicion of crime or divulge the secret of
confession.
|
|