Questions Answered

• Pope John XXIII was recently canonized, but I have read that he allowed documents to be produced saying that Jews were Christians to save them during World War II. Is this not a lie?
• A father of teenagers recently tried to get me to reveal what I had told his son in confession. He seemed oblivious to the whole concept of the sacramental seal of confession. What should I tell someone like this?

Question: Pope John XXIII was recently canonized, but I have read that he allowed documents to be produced saying that Jews were Christians to save them during World War II. Is this not a lie?

Answer: This question has many ramifications regarding the nature of lying. Moral theology recognizes three determinants which form the basis for judging the morality of an act: object, intention, and circumstances. Though some contemporary moralists claim that one cannot judge an act until the intention and circumstances are considered, this is not true of an evil act. An act which is evil by object vitiates any further consideration of circumstances or intention. The consequences of an act are, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, circumstances. “The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. … Circumstances, of themselves, cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action which is, in itself, evil” (§1754). So, related to the case of St. John XXIII, his intention to save life, and the fact that many lives, in fact, were saved (consequences) would not make this a good act if it were truly a lie in the moral sense. The fact that it is a lie in this sense depends on the object in the way in which it relates to the objective truth of human nature.

The object of an act is generally a judgment about the relationship of the act to justice, which, itself, is determined by right. Justice is the constant and perpetual will to give to another his due. It is framed around the recognition of the rights of the other. These rights, in turn, are founded in right reason, which is determined by either natural, civil, or the divine law contained in the Scriptures. Just because two acts look alike physically does not mean that they are the same in relation to reason. The act of adultery and marriage look the same and may, in fact, produce goods like children. But in relation to reason, they are substantially different: one is evil, the other good.

The question of lying is complex. A lie is defined as “speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2482). It may be about a trivial matter or an important one, which determines if it is a venial or a mortal sin. “The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intention of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims” (CCC §2484).

Although lying is a form of injustice, not every falsity is lying. For lying to qualify as a form of injustice, the person to whom one speaks a falsehood must have a right to the truth. “The right of communication of the truth is not unconditional. … No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have a right to know it.” (CCC §2489 citing Sir 27:16 and Prv 25:9-10).

In the case mentioned, the Nazi authorities wishing to know who was a member of the Church in order to practice mass liquidation based on race, had no right to the truth. The civil order has no rights respecting the ecclesiastical order when it comes to the state of the soul. The act of baptism establishes such a state. This is one of the reasons for the strict prohibition of revealing anything said in confession to anyone, including the civil authorities, as words spoken there are said to God and involve the private forum. Though it is true baptism is normally a public act, since it involves a profession of faith and the imparting of grace, it does not, in any sense, fall under the scrutiny of the civil law. From the point of view of the object, an act in which a cleric attests that someone is baptized, when he or she is not, is only unjust objectively, if made to Church authorities who have a right to know this.

The intention of John XXIII was to prevent mass murder, and the circumstances were certainly dire. To deny that Jews were Christians would be tantamount to signing the death warrant of millions of innocent people. The state had no competence or right to demand, or even request, such information. The act was thus not against justice.

Of course, to simply lie outright can certainly be a cause of great scandal. This is why Catholic moralists, in general, have advised mental reservation, which the Catechism expresses by saying one should be “silent about what ought not to be known or by making use of a discreet language” (§2489). But legal documents are, after all, mere pieces of paper receiving their sanction from human law. The sacraments are, in no sense, under that sanction. The object of the act was, therefore, not unjust. Those who would be scandalized that producing bureaucratic forms about something which the bureaucrats did not have a right to know, in order to save millions of innocent people from torture and death, should consider that there is no objective basis for their scandal.

Question: A father of teenagers recently tried to get me to reveal what I had told his son in confession. When I replied I could not discuss it, he asked me to just nod my head to his questions. He seemed oblivious to the whole concept of the sacramental seal of confession. What should I tell someone like this?

Answer: First, it is important to remember that there is widespread ignorance of our faith today among Catholics. We are dealing with at least three generations of uncatechized adults. This is one of the reasons St. John Paul II called for a “New Evangelization.” It is therefore important to clarify the theory and practice of the confessional seal and, perhaps, even to deliver a homily on it to remind and instruct the faithful.

The sacrament of penance involves a manifestation of conscience on the part of the penitent to the confessor. The human priest is merely a mediator, because the conscience is actually exposed to Christ himself. The Catechism states: “The confessor is not the master of God’s forgiveness, but its servant. The minister of this sacrament should unite himself to the intention and the charity of Christ” (§1466). Since this is the case, the penitent’s words are spoken to Christ; no confessor has a right to reveal anything that is said to him by a penitent to someone else. The words are not spoken to the priest, except in a very indirect way.

There have been some teachers who have taught that the seal of confession does not apply in sexual abuse cases, and, so, confessors would be obliged to report what was said to him. This is simply not true, and a serious abuse of the secrecy of the confessional, which respects the sacramental theology emphasizing that the context of confession is made directly to Christ. The Catechism also says: “Given the delicacy and greatness of this ministry and the respect due to persons, the Church declares that every priest who hears confessions is bound under very severe penalties to keep absolute secrecy regarding the sins that his penitents have confessed to him. He can make no use of knowledge that confession gives him about penitent’s lives. This secret, which admits of no exceptions, is called the “sacramental seal,” because what the penitent has made known to the priest remains “sealed” by the sacrament” (§1467).

The Church considers this seal so important that the severe penalty is excommunication, which does not need to be formally imposed (latae sententiae). Canon law states: “The sacramental seal is inviolate. Accordingly, it is absolutely wrong for a confessor, in any way, to betray the penitent, for any reason whatsoever, whether by word or in any fashion (§983, 1). The confessor is wholly forbidden to use knowledge acquired in confession to the detriment of the penitent even when all danger of disclosure is excluded (§984, 1). A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; he who does so indirectly is punished according to the gravity of the offense (§1388, 1).” The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clarified the fact that this excommunication also applies to those who record or use social communication to make known anything revealed in the confessional.

The seal is so strong that neither the penitent nor Church authority can give the priest permission to reveal what goes on in confession. So this is not like a professional secret. Also, anyone overhearing a confession is also bound by the seal, as would be the case with someone who accidentally overhears what is said or translated.

The gravity and difficulty of this teaching is very well exemplified in the famous movie directed by Alfred Hitchcock, I Confess. In this film, the priest hears a confession in which the penitent confesses murder, and then is implicated in the murder himself. He can answer no questions about it. In the trial, he is declared “not guilty,” but the judge states he considers this verdict to be inadequate, thus, not saving the priest’s reputation. Those who wish to instruct the faithful in this very important discipline could make great use of this film to instruct them in the beauty and gravity of this seal.