Since, however, besides their leading aims, which are for the most part a matter of secrecy, these societies have for their secondary object mutual assistance in temporal things, the question arises whether a member, who having joined the association in good faith, has given his share toward the accumulation of a benefit fund, a proportionate part of which was to be returned to him or his family with just interest, either as savings or as relief money in case of sickness or death-whether such a member must so far renounce his connection with the society as to sustain a serious loss. To this, the Holy Office answers: As a rule, such financial loss is not a valid reason for continuing in the society, since it is impossible for a man to remain a nominal member of a society, without either furthering its main object, though unwillingly and unconsciously, or else giving scandal to those who do not know the true reasons for his remaining a nominal member, and who will naturally assume that such membership means practical co-operation in the aims and purposes of the society.

Nevertheless, there may be cases where there is no scandal given by the person continuing a nominal member, and where there exists no danger for his faith and where withdrawal would mean serious pecuniary loss. In such cases, provided the man joined the society in good faith, not knowing that it was forbidden, the pastor or confessor may make application in order to obtain permission to give the man absolution although he allows his name to remain on the rolls of the society in order to be entitled to the insurance for which he has been paying perhaps for many years. If such be the case, the Apostolic Delegate in Washington has been empowered by the Holy See, to allow a mere nominal membership to continue, according to his judgment of the case, for the sole purpose of securing for the applicant an external title to what really belongs to him, without

identifying him with the dangerous or unlawful character of the forbidden society.

In summing up the case before us, we would say that:

1. Since the man in question became a Knight of Pythias in good faith, that is before his conversion to the Catholic Church,

2. Since he can not now withdraw from the order without serious pecuniary loss, being a poor man ; then

3. If his nominal membership create no special danger for his spiritual interests, and

4. If such membership give no scandal, then application ought to be made to the Apostolic Delegate in Washington by the man's confessor, or through him by the bishop, to obtain permission for the gentleman to continue a nominal member of the K. P.'s, in order to be able to claim legally the insurance that belongs to him and to his family. The confessor has no power or jurisdiction to judge whether the conditions that may permit nominal membership are verified or not; neither has the ordinary such power. The Apostolic Delegate alone is the competent authority to determine whether the circumstances of the case call for a special permission or authorization to continue a nominal member of the society.

IX. THE SEAL OF CONFESSION

Titus, a priest, has for some time, been hearing the monthly confessions of certain boys. Recently the boy J. came to Confession and confessed among other things, that he had been "mad at a boy." No names are mentioned, but the priest happens to know the boy J., who is confessing, and thinks he knows also the one at whom J., as he says, is "mad," and whose name is H. After questioning to satisfy himself that J. entertains no further ill-will against the other boy, the priest absolves and dismisses the penitent. Subsequently he notices that the two boys J. and H. are no longer seen together, though they had in the past associated a great deal. Titus, in an occasional talk with H., whom he thinks to be the boy referred to by J. in Confession, asks H. if he and J. were not on good terms, and H. admits they were not. Titus brought up this matter in order to bring about a reconciliation between the two boys, one of whom, J., had in Confession expressed his consent to be reconciled.

Did Titus act properly in asking this other boy H. about the matter? e. g., if he and J. were on good terms? Would the two boys concerned be likely to think that the priest made use of knowledge which he had obtained in the confessional?

Answer. There are two decrees of the Holy See extant, regarding the use of knowledge gained in the confessional. The first is a decree of Clement VIII, May 26, 1593, in which superiors of religious orders are forbidden to make use of any knowledge gained in the confessional, for the external government of the order. DeLugo and St. Alphonsus, both maintain that this decree is to be extended to all superiors, even though they belong to the secular clergy, in relation to all classes of penitents, because the decree does not

contain merely a particular regulation for some individuals, but it promulgates a divine law concerning the seal of Confession. And for this reason, they say, that the doctrine of the earlier theologians, that knowledge gained from Confession might be made use of, provided there was no danger of revealing the sins of the penitent, that is, provided others would not suspect anything about the penitent, must be corrected. The other decree is a decree of the Holy Office, November 18, 1682, by which it is forbidden to make use of information gained in the confessional, to the detriment of the penitent, even though by so doing the penitent might be saved from some greater evil or suffering, and especially from some greater sin. This decree necessitates the amendment of the principle, held also by the earlier theologians, that information gathered in the confessional might be made use of, provided the penitent could not be rationabiliter invitus, that is to say, when the use of such information is necessary to reclaim the penitent from sin.

St. Alphonsus admonishes all confessors to be exceedingly careful in the matter of the seal of Confession, since there is always more or less danger of either revealing the sins of the penitent or else creating hardships for him. We will give a brief synopsis of the teaching of the holy Doctor in regard to the seal of Confession. He says that it is never allowed to make use of any information gained from the Confession of a penitent, if

1. There be danger of revealing a penitent's sins;

2. Thereby a hardship be created for the penitent, or the penitent be led thereby to dislike or detest Confession;

3. Others suspect that the seal of Confession is being violated, or in other words, if others are scandalized.

1. Even though some greater evil or sin might be obviated for the penitent, by the use of information gained from the penitent's

Confession, it is never allowed to use it. Not even if the penitent did not know that the confessor was acting on information gathered from his Confession. The reason why such knowledge may not be used, even when the penitent is quite ignorant that it is being used, is that the faithful would be turned away from the practice of Confession, if they thought that the confessor might use the information gathered from their Confessions.

Therefore, if the confessor knows from the penitent's Confession, that the penitent is making bad Confessions, or is indisposed, he may not, for that reason, refuse to hear his Confession. For such conduct on the part of the confessor would be a violation of the seal and would render Confession odious.

It is never allowed to question the confessor of children concerning their conduct, nor is it permitted to consult a confessor regarding young men who are to receive holy orders. The only information that a confessor may volunteer under such circumstances is that such penitents frequent the Sacraments.

2. It is lawful to use information gathered in the confessional, provided such use does not result in hardship to the penitent and there be no fear of any revelation. For if there be no fear either of revelation or of hardship for the penitent, the Sacrament will not be made odious, even though the penitent should notice that some use was being made of what he had told in Confession, because if the use being made of knowledge gained in Confession is in no wise detrimental or burdensome to the penitent then such use does not make Confession more difficult or distasteful.

Therefore a confessor may make use of what he knows from Confession for the reformation of his own life, for the better fulfillment of his office or duties as a confessor, to pray to God for his penitents, to treat them with more kindliness, even though the