talia peccata, licet non sint materia sigilli, tamen periculum revelationis involvunt; probabile enim indicium præbent, quod confessarius vel noluerit absolvere, vel acriter reprehenderit propter aliquam culpam graviorem.

"Præterea dicunt Tambur. d. cap. 3. n. 13. Viva q. 10. art. 2. n. 5. Sporer num. 842. et consentiunt Wig. tr. 13. n. 128. ac Conc. p. 739. n. 10. quod, si defectus naturales paupertatis, ignobilitatis, et similium, ita referantur a pœnitente, ut ex adjunctis colligatur eos esse communiter notos, tunc non cadunt sub sigillo, quia tunc non præsumitur pœnitens narrare ipsos nisi ut cognitos, nec velle subjicere clavibus, quando expresse aliter non declarat. Sed huic opinioni etiam merito non consentit Holzmann p. 187. num. 706. v. 4. ob eamdem rationem ut supra, quia, cum defectus illi ex peccatorum confessione cogniti sint a confessario, manifestatio eorum retardaret pœnitentes a confessione.

644.-"Quod autem dicunt auctores supra citati de aliis defectibus naturalibus, dicunt etiam de defectu scrupulositatis, nempe posse confessarium dicere pœnitentem suum esse scrupulosum, si id noverit vel ex modo confi. tendi, vel si illius scrupu

the confessor looks on. Neither (I have said) do I agree with this, because such sins, although not the matter of the seal, however, involve the peril of disclosure; for they afford a probable proof, that the confessor either was unwilling to absolve, or blamed him severely on account of some greater fault.

"Besides, Tambur. d. cap. 3. n. 13. Viva q. 10. art. 2. n. 5. Sporer. num. 842. et Wig. tr. 13. n. 128. and Conc. p. 739. n. 10. say, that if the natural defects of poverty, low-birth, and the like, are so mentioned by the penitent, that from the adjuncts it is collected, that they were commonly known, then they do not fall under the seal, because then the penitent is presumed to narrate those things as known, neither to wish that they should be placed under the keys, when he does not expressly declare otherwise. But to this opinion Holzmann, p. 187. num. 706. v. 4. justly does not assent, on account of the same reason as above, because since these defects are known from the confession of sins by the confessor, their publication would drive penitents from the confessional."

644-"But what the above mentioned authors say concerning other natural defects; they say also concerning the defect of scrupulosity, to wit, that a confessor could say that his own penitent was scrupulous, if he had known that either from his manner of

lositas sit publice nota. Sed pariter huic nec acquiescimus cum Sporer num. 884. et Tambur. n. 18. qui citat. Con. Gran. Hurtad. Pal. etc. quia eadem ratio currit, cum non pauci ægre ferant, se scrupulosos appellari. Tantum id admitti posset, si minime redundaret in gravamen pœnitentis, prout facile accidere potest, loquendo de secularibus. qui potius laudantur, cum dicitur de eis, quod sint scrupulosi; hoc enim pro iis, qui in seculo versantur, indicium est bonæ, et timoratæ conscientiæ. Secus, si dicatur de prælato, confessario, et similibus, quibus scrupulositas est signum mentis confusæ, et irresolutæ.

"Dicitur autem a Roncaglia p. 202. c. 2. reg. 1. in praxi quod, si aliquis pœnitens communiter dignoscatur esse valde prolixus, inquietus etc. in aliquo exponendo, tunc quia clare appareret confessarium fugere, ne ab ipsius naturali prolixitate, inquietudine etc. tædio afficiatur, in talibus circumstantiis fugere non esset fractio sigilli. Hoc probabiliter admitti potest, si communiter pateat aliis pœnitentem illum esse timoratæ conscientiæ, ita ut moraliter certo reputent immunem esse a gravioribus culpis.

"Petes hic, quid agere deberet confessarius, si quis confiteatur aliquam materiam gravem non satis distincte, et confessarius ideo eum interrogans de circumstantiis, de consuetudine, vel simili, no

confessing, or, if his scrupulosity be publicly known. But likewise, to this we do not assent, with Sporer, num. 844. and Tambur. n. 18. who quote Con. Gran. Hurtad. Pal. &c., because the same reason applies, since not a few would take it ill that they should be called scrupulous. That alone can be admitted, if it can by no means redound to the injury of the penitent, which may easily happen in speaking concerning persons engaged in secular pursuits, who are rather lauded, when it is said of them, that they are scrupulous, because this for them who are engaged in secular matters, is a mark of a good and timid conscience; otherwise, if it be said of a prelate, confessor, and the like, in whom scrupulosity is a mark of a confused and irresolute mind.

"But it is said by Roncaglia, p. 20. r c. 2. Reg. 1. in praxi. that if any penitent be commonly known as very prolix, troublesome, &c., in explaining any thing, then, because it would evidently appear that the confessor fled lest he should be tormented by his natural prolixity, inquietude, and tediousness, in such cases to fly would not be a breach of the seal. This probably can be admitted if it would generally appear to others, that the penitent was of a timid conscience, so that with moral certainty they would esteem him to be free from greater faults.

"You will ask here, what a confessor ought to do, if any one confess any serious matter

verit pœnitentem esse surdum, cum minime adæquate interrogationibus, ille respondet, et contra confessarius altius vocem extollere nequit, ne alii circumstantes audiant. Respondeo: Si circa initium confessionis advertat pœnitentis surditatem, imponat ei ut redeat alio tempore, et loco opportuno, ubi loqui libere possit confessarius, ne alii audiant. Et interim patefacere potest aliis surditatem pœnitentis, quando talis defectus communiter fit patens. Si vero advertat hoc in progressu confessionis, et pœni tens post plures debitas interrogationes recte non respondeat, tunc non licet confessario alta voce imponere pœnitenti, ut redeat, ita ut circumstantes hoc audiant, quia magna daretur eis suspicio quod materiam gravem ille sit confessus. Ideoque in tali casu consilium esse puto, ut confessarius intelligendo peccata meliori modo quo possit, absolvat ; absolute quidem, si pœnitens probabiliter censeatur dispositus; sub conditione vero, si de dispositione dubitetur. Casum istum apud DD. non inveni, sed obvius est.

with insufficient distinctness, and the confessor moreover interrogating him concerning circumstances, custom, and the like, know the penitent to be deaf, since by no means does he answer sufficiently to the interrogations, and on the contrary the confessor be unable to raise his voice, lest others might hear? I answer: if about the beginning of the confession he perceive the deafness of the penitent, he may require him to return at another time and in a fit place, where the confessor can freely question him, lest others might hear. And meanwhile, he can make known to others the deafness of the penitent, when that defect is commonly exposed. But, if he perceive this in the progress of the confession, and the penitent, after many due enquiries, be unable to answer properly, then it is not lawful for the confessor to require with a loud voice, that the penitent should return at another time, lest those standstanding by hear this; because a great cause for suspicion would be given to them, that he had confessed some grievous matter. Moreover, in such a case I think it prudent that the confessor, becoming acquainted with his sins in the best way he can, may absolve him, absolutely indeed, if the penitent be thought probably worthy, but conditionally, if it be doubted concerning his state. I have not found this case among the Doctors, but it is obvious.

"645.-Resp. 2. Ad sigillum tenentur omnes, ad quos quomodocumque notitia sacramentalis confessionis pervenit: qualis est I. confessarius, qui, si de auditis in confessione rogetur, potest negare etiam, si opus est, cum juramento, subintelligendo, quod possit dicere, vel potius (ut dicit cardin. de Lugo d. 23.) quod sciat scientia utili ad respondendum interroganti extra confessionem. Excipit Henriquez et Granadus cum Dian. p. 5. t. 11. r. 43. nisi ex illa negatione sequeretur confessionem non fuisse integram, v. gr. si de publica meretrice rogaretur, an non esset confessa fornicationem; tune enim, declinando directam responsionem, dicendum esset illam confessam esse peccata, et se functum officio suo. Imo, si peccatum suum salvo sigillo non possit confiteri, debet omittere, quia sigillum strictius obligat, quam integritas confessionis.'

"645.—It is answered, 2 that all are bound to the seal, to whom a knowledge of the sacramental confession comes, conveyed in whatever way it may: such is I. the Confessor, who, if he be asked concerning things heard in confession, can deny that he knows them even if it be needful, with an oath, by understanding what he may be able to mention, or rather, (as Cardinal de Lugo. d. 23. says,) what he knows with a knowledge useful for answering, being interrogated out of confession. Henriquez and Granadus, with Dian. p. 5. t. 11. r. 43. make an exception, unless from that denial it would follow, that the confession was not whole, for example, if he should be asked concerning a public harlot, whether she confessed fornication; for then, by declining a direet answer, it would be said that she confessed sins, and that he discharged his own office. Yea, if his own sin could not be confessed with an unbroken seal, he ought to omit it, because the seal more strictly binds, than the completeness of confession.'

"646.-It is asked, whether the Confessor, interrogated concerning the sins of his penitent, can say that he does not know it, even with an oath. It is answered in the affirmative, in accordance with the common opinion, which D. Thomas. suppl. q. 11. art. 1 ad 3. S. Anton. 3. p. tit. 17, cap. 22. Suar. d. 33. sect. 6. n. 7. Laymann. c. 14. n. 12. Antoine

Holzm. num. 722. Pal. p. 5. § 3. num. 13. cum Nav. Bon. Val. et Henriq. ac Lugo d. 23. num. 73. cum Vasq. (qui opinionem oppositam Gabrielis vocat erroneam) et aliis commun. Ratio affertur a D. Thom. loc. cit. qui dicit: Homo non adducitnr in testimonium, nisi ut homo, ideo.....potest jurare se nescire quod scit tantum ut Deus; (et hoc, etiamsi confessarius rogatus fuerit ad respondendum non ut homo, sed præcipue ut minister Dei prout recte aiunt Suarez loc, cit. Sporer n. 817. Lug. n. 74. cum Vasq. et communi. Item Croix num. 1985. cum Laymann, Tanner. Stoz. etc. contra Palud. Sotum et Concin. p. 745. n. 25.) quia confessarius nullo modo scit peccatum scientia, qua possit uti ad respondendum, unde juste asserit se nescire id quod sine injustitia nequit manifestare. Vide dicta 1. 3. n. 152. v. Hinc. Quid, si insuper rogetur ad respondendum sine æquivocatione? Adhuc cum juramento potest respondere, se nescire, ut probabilius dicunt Lugo. n. 79. Croix 1. c. cum Stoz. et Holzm. num. 722. cum Michel contra alios. Ratio, quia tunc confessarius revera respondet secundum juramentum. factum, quod semper factum intelligitur modo quo fieri poterat, nempe manifestandi veritatem sine æquivocatione, sed sine æquivocatione illa, quæ licite omitti, poterat: quoad æquivocationem vero

p. 449. q. 6. Wig. tr. 13. n. 111 Holzm. num. 722. Pal. p. 5. § 3. num. 13. cum Nav. Bon. Val. et Henriq. ac Lugo. d. 23. num. 73. cum Vasq. (who calls Gabriel's opposite opinion erroneous) and others hold. The reason is adduced by the divine Thomas in the quoted place, who says: 'a man is not adduced in testimony, unless as a man, therefore he can swear that he does not know what he knows, only as God) (and this holds good, although a confessor may have been asked to give his answer, not as man but especially as minister of God, as Suarez. in the quoted place, Sporer. n. 817. Lug. n. 74. cum Vasq. and the common opinion rightly say. Also Croix. num. 1985. with Laymann, Tanner, Stoz. &c., against Palud. Sotum. and Concin. p. 745. n. 25.) because a confessor, in no manner knows a sin with a knowledge which he can use for the purpose of answering; wherefore he justly asserts, that he does not know that which without injustice he cannot manifest. What if he should be asked to answer without equivocation? Even in that case, he can answer with an oath that he does not know it; as more probably Lugo. n. 79. Croix. 1.c.cum Stoz. et Holzm. num. 722. with Michel teaches against others. The Reason is, because then the confessor verily answers according to the oath made, which is always understood to be made in the manner in which it was