|
Objection 1: It would seem that a man may not reveal what he knows
through confession and through some other source besides. For the seal
of confession is not broken unless one reveals a sin known through
confession. If therefore a man divulges a sin which he knows through
confession, no matter how he knows it otherwise, he seems to break the
seal.
Objection 2: Further, whoever hears someone's confession, is
under obligation to him not to divulge his sins. Now if one were to
promise someone to keep something secret, he would be bound to do so,
even if he knew it through some other source. Therefore a man is bound
to keep secret what he knows through the confession, no matter how he
knows it otherwise.
Objection 3: Further, the stronger of two things draws the other to
itself. Now the knowledge whereby a man knows a sin as God knows it,
is stronger and more excellent than the knowledge whereby he knows a sin
as man. Therefore it draws the latter to itself: and consequently a
man cannot reveal that sin, because this is demanded by his knowing it
as God knows it.
Objection 4: Further, the secrecy of confession was instituted in
order to avoid scandal, and to prevent men being shy of going to
confession. But if a man might say what he had heard in confession,
though he knew it otherwise, scandal would result all the same.
Therefore he can nowise say what he has heard.
On the contrary, No one can put another under a new obligation,
unless he be his superior, who can bind him by a precept. Now he who
knew of a sin by witnessing it was not bound to keep it secret.
Therefore he that confesses to him, not being his superior, cannot
put him under an obligation of secrecy by confessing to him.
Further, the justice of the Church would be hindered if a man, in
order to escape a sentence of excommunication, incurred on account of
some sin, of which he has been convicted, were to confess to the
person who has to sentence him. Now the execution of justice falls
under a precept. Therefore a man is not bound to keep a sin secret,
which he has heard in confession, but knows from some other source.
I answer that, There are three opinions about this question. For
some say that a man can by no means tell another what he has heard in
confession, even if he knew it from some other source either before or
after the confession: while others assert that the confession debars
him from speaking of what he knew already, but not from saying what he
knew afterwards and in another way. Now both these opinions, by
exaggerating the seal of confession, are prejudicial to the truth and
to the safeguarding of justice. For a man might be more inclined to
sin, if he had no fear of being accused by his confessor supposing that
he repeated the sin in his presence: and furthermore it would be most
prejudicial to justice if a man could not bear witness to a deed which
he has seen committed again after being confessed to him. Nor does it
matter that, as some say, he ought to declare that he cannot keep it
secret, for he cannot make such a declaration until the sin has already
been confessed to him, and then every priest could, if he wished,
divulge a sin, by making such a declaration, if this made him free to
divulge it. Consequently there is a third and truer opinion, viz.
that what a man knows through another source either before or after
confession, he is not bound to keep secret, in so far as he knows it
as a man, for he can say: "I know so end so since I saw it." But
he is bound to keep it secret in so far as he knows it as God knows
it, for he cannot say: "I heard so and so in confession."
Nevertheless, on account of the scandal he should refrain from
speaking of it unless there is an urgent reason.
Reply to Objection 1: If a man says that he has seen what he has
heard in the confessional, he does not reveal what he heard in
confession, save indirectly: even as one who knows something through
hearing and seeing it, does not, properly speaking, divulge what he
saw, if he says he heard it, but only indirectly, because he says he
has heard what he incidentally saw. Wherefore he does not break the
seal of confession.
Reply to Objection 2: The confessor is not forbidden to reveal a
sin simply, but to reveal it as heard in confession: for in no case is
he allowed to say that he has heard it in the confessional.
Reply to Objection 3: This is true of things that are in opposition
to one another: whereas to know a sin as God knows it, and to know it
as man knows it, are not in opposition; so that the argument proves
nothing.
Reply to Objection 4: It would not be right to avoid scandal so as
to desert justice: for the truth should not be gainsayed for fear of
scandal. Wherefore when justice and truth are in the balance, a man
should not be deterred by the fear of giving scandal, from divulging
what he has heard in confession, provided he knows it from some other
source: although he ought to avoid giving scandal, as far as he is
able.
|
|