33. The Obligation To Keep Secrets
The Obligation to Keep Secrets
[To 3] To the last, it is clear to what extent a promissory oath binds or does not bind one to fulfill what was promised.
33. THE OBLIGATION TO KEEP SECRETS
(Ordinatio IV, dist. 2 I, q. 2) Regarding the seal of confession I ask: Is a confessor bound not to reveal a sin discovered in confession from the law of nature? ...
In this question our first conclusion is this: The priest is bound not to reveal a sin discovered in confession from the law of nature. [Secondly, these principles] apply to other secrets about others confided to us under the seal of secrecy . . .
I hold this first conclusion, but present four reasons other than [those commonly given]. The first is derived from the nature of charity, the second from that of fidelity, the third from that of veracity, and the fourth from the grounds for unity or mutual utility.
The first is this. The law of fraternal charity is expressed in Matthew 7: 12: "Treat others the way you would have them treat you; this sums up the law and the prophets"; and Luke 6:31: "Do to others what you would have them do to yOU." But this proposition of the law of nature regarding fraternal charity must be understood in this way. "What you would have them do" means what you would have them do according to right reason. This also applies to that command in Matthew 22:[)9]:
"Love your 'neighbor as yourself." Now, everyone according to right reason ought to love his good name or reputation; therefore, he must also want the sins he confesses to remain hidden, and hence his confessor must want the same as his penitent does. The revelation of sins would take away the good name of the one confessing them; therefore,
[the sins he reveals must be kept hidden].-The minor of this argument is proved from reason. Everyone according to right reason ought to wish to live the life of a respectable citizen. Loss of reputation would rob him of this, however, for a person is fit to live as a respectable citizen only insofar as he is fit for such legitimate activities as pertain to citizenship; and a loss of reputation would make him unfit for such, because it would cost him his worthiness to perform such functions as he would otherwise be worthy to accomplish. The second part of the minor, namely, that the revelation of the sins he confesses would deprive the penitent of this reputation to which he has a right, is proved in this way. The same reason that would justify revealing his faults to one would permit one to reveal them to others and thus to
Sin all. But it is clear that by such a revelation his status of unblemished worthiness, consisting of his good name among his fellow citizens, would be taken from him.
The second reason: Everyone is bound by the law of nature to keep such faith as his neighbor wants him to keep and as he should want his neighbor to keep with himself. But anyone who commits a great secret to another wants it, and should want it, to be kept secret; therefore, the other, to whom he confides such, is obliged to do so . . .
The third reason: Everyone is bound by the law of nature to keep a licit promise he has made; but the recipient of a secret, above all one learned in confession, promises, if not explicitly, at least implicitly, that he will keep such secret, because without such a promise, at least implicitly understood, the penitent would not reveal such a secret to his confessor; therefore, etc. This reason could be gleaned from those words [of Zachary 8: r6]: "Speak ye the truth everyone to his neighbor."
The fourth reason: A community has a holistic character analogous to the unity of the mystical body of Christ, namely, that here there is an ordered relationship of superior and subject; and the superior is bound to help the subject and the subject is bound to carry out his ministry under the direction of the superior, according to that simile
Paul uses of the mystical body of Christ, which he describes in so many places. But in civil life it is the subjects that are less knowledgeable, whereas in the Church it is the sinner that is the inferior and the priest is the superior, who both counsels and reconciles the penitent. Hence it is in the nature of this relationship that nothing should prevent the inferior from having recourse to the superior in his need, or the superior from exercising his beneficent influence on the inferior, for this is the way in which the members are useful to each other. But the revelation of secrets prevents the inferior from taking such recourse to the superior when his soul is in need of counsel, and hence prevents the superior from helping the inferior, because no one would have recourse to someone for counsel or help, if such a one were not bound by rule to keep hidden his secrets. Therefore, the same law of nature whereby one is bound to preserve the unity of the mystical body of Christ, to work for the common welfare of each other as members of a body, also binds one to keep the secrets of confession.
As for the other point, it is admitted that everyone is bound by the law of nature to preserve all secrets, for the same reasons given for the above conclusion. Nor does this law bind only when the one confiding such expressly says he wishes to convey this as a secret, but whenever from the manner in which the secret is conveyed it is clear it was meant to be kept as a secret.