SEAL
650
SEAL
cil of Durham (1220) declared as follows: "Nc sac-
erdos revelet confessionem — Nullus ira, vel odio, vel
Ecclesiae metu vel mortis in aliquo audeat revelare
confessiones, signo vel verbo generali vel speciali ut
dicendo 'Ego scio quales vos estis', sub periculo or-
dinis et beneficii, et si convict us fuerit, absque mise-
ricordia degradabitur", i. e., "A priest shall not re-
veal a confession — let none dare from anger or hatred
or fear of the Church or of death, in any way to re-
veal confessions, by sign or word, general or special, as
(for instance), by saying, 'I know what manner of
men ye are' under peril of his Order and Benefice, and
if he shall be convicted thereof he shall be degraded
without mercy" (see Wilkins, "Concilia", I, 577,
595). The provincial Council of Oxford, held in
1222, contains a similar canon, in which degradation
is prescribed for any breach of the seal. We find the
law, as laid down by the 21st canon of the Lateran
Council, declared in the Acts of the Synod of Exeter
in 1287 (Spelman, "Concilia", II, 357).
The fact that the laws of the Church were so em- phatic on the subject, coupled with the fact that the Church was then the Church of the nation, affords good ground for inferring that the secular courts recognized the seal. The recognition of it would not have rested on any principle of immunity from dis- closure of confidential commimications made to clergj^men. It would have rested on the fact that confession was a sacrament, on the fact of that ne- ce.ssity for it which the doctrine of the Church laid down, on the fact of the practice of it by both king and people, and on the fact that the practice was wholly a matter of .spiritual discipline and one, more- over, in regard to which the Church had so definitely declared the law of absolute secrecy.
It is stated by some, among others by the Commis- sioners appointed to report upon the ecclesiastical courts in their report published in 1883, that the ecclesiastical courts in England did not regard them- selves as bound by the rules of canon law framed by the Church outside England, by the various papal Decrees, Rescripts, etc. But the Commissioners add that these courts paid great respect and attention to these Rules, Decrees, etc. There seems to be so much weighty evidence against this view that it is difficult to accept it. Sir Frederick Pollock and Professor Maitland in their joint "History of English Law" (I, 94 and 95) say that the jus com- mune or common law of the universal Church was the law of the Church in England. In this connexion important material is contained in the "Provinciale" of Lyndwood (Oxford, 1679), the only great English canonist.
The "Provinciale" consists of the provincial consti- tutions of fourteen archbishops of Canterbury from Stephen Langton (d. 1228) to Henry Chichele (d. 1443). When Lynrlwood was engaged on this com-
Cilation he was the principal official of the Arch- ishop of Canterbury : he had been, also, the prolocu- tor of the clergy in the Convocation of Canterbury. Professor Maitland, in his essays on "Roman Canon Law in the Church of England", expresses the opin- ion that the ecclesiastical courts in England re- garded the general body of canon law, including the various papal Decrees and Rescripts and the com- mentaries of the various great writers, as their law, which they had to administer. In citing Lyndwood as providing us with strong ground for this opinion. Professor Maitland aptly says: "At any rate he will Btatfl the law which he atJministers in the chief of all the English ecclesiastical courts".
In the "I'rovinciale" there is a constitution of Walter, Anhbishop of Canterbury, apparetil ly Walter Reynolds, transferred from the See of Worcester to the primatiiil see in 1313. The constitution begins with a prohibition to priests who have fallen into mor- tal sin to say Mass without first going to confession
and warning them against imagining, as some be-
lievers erroneously do, that mortal sins are forgiven
by the general confession made in the recitation of the
Confiteor. It continues as follows: "Also let no
priest dare from anger, hatred or fear, even of death,
to disclose in any manner whatsoever, whether by
sign, gesture or word, in general or in particular, any-
body's confession. And if he shall be convicted of
this he shall be, deservedl}-, degraded, without hope of
reconciliation".
Upon this constitution we have the following com- mentary by Lyndwood occurring upon the word "Confession " : " Supply ' Sacramental '. For in a Con- fession which is not sacramental, when, for instance, anyone in secret counsel reveals to some one else something which is not in the nature of sin, thus, sup- pose he reveals to a priest what he owes or what is owing to him, the prieSt is not to receive such a secret under the seal of Confession. And although through indiscretion he may have so received it, he is not to •conceal it imless as a matter of counsel or secret. Wherefore, if the ]-)riest were ordered (compulsus) by a judge to tell the truth about such a debt, whenever a judge rightly inquires about the matter in order that he may know the truth, he is bound to do so, notwith- standing that he may have received the secret under the seal of Confession. And though he may have sworn to keep the matter secret, yet if afterwards that debt should be forfeited and the judge makes inquiry thereinto, if the priest is examined, he is bound to tell the truth, notwithstanding his sworn promise. For that oath is not binding on him, being an unlawful one and, thus, one not to be kept to the prejudice of an- other's right" ; — he cites in support, St. Thomas Aqui- nas and Hostiensis — "but if some such debt is un- justly demanded by some tyrant, then though he is aware of the debt he ought to keep silence about it or to change the subject or to reply sophistically ('res- pondere sophistice')" — he cites in support a com- mentary on Raymond de Pennaforte.— "But", Lynd- wood continues, "what if the priest should know that matter by any other means than by Confession before the spiritual tribunal (in foro anima?)? It may be said that in as far as he knows it by any other means and he is ordered (compulsus) by a judge he may tell it, but not, of course, so as he heard it in confession; but let him say, as follows: 'I heard it thus or I saw it thus'. But let him always refrain as far as possible from speaking about the person so as to avoid scandal unless there be immediate necessity"; — he cites in support. Innocent IV, the glossary on Raymond de Pennaforte and Asti.sanus, a Friar Minor and writer of the fourteenth century.
Dealing with the priest's being found guilty of re- vealing a confession, he says: " But what if the person confessing consents to its being revealed, because, perch;ince, he calls the Confessor as a witness?" His answer is: "The floctors say that he may reveal it. But understand this in such way that the priest shall on no account reveal that which he knows only through confession (hoc tamcn sic intellige quod sa- cerdos illud, (juod scrit solum per confe.ssionem, nullo modo debet revelare). But the person who has (con- fessed can intimate the matter to hirn in some other way which gives him leave to reveal it: and then h(^ can tell, but, none the less, he ought to avoid scandal its much as possible. For he is bound to conceal the confession for two reasons, viz., on account of the sac- rament, because it is almost of the essence of the sac- rament to conceal the confession (quia quasi de essen- tia Sacrament i est, celare Confessionem): likewise for reason of the scandal. The first is removed by the permission of the i)erson confessing, but t he second re- rnains none the I(!.sk: and, therefore, where scandal is lo be feared, he ought not to make use of such permis- sion. These are the pronouncement of Thomas and of Peter, according to what is noted by John in
