170 



THE MEANS OF GRACE 



he hears not as a man, but as the representative 

 of God, and hence, when asked as a private in- 

 dividual, he may deny knowledge which he pos- 

 sesses only from confession. In acting thus he 

 does not employ a purely mental reservation be- 

 cause every one knows that a priest, if asked 

 for information, even in court, answers merely 

 as a man, and not as the vicar of God. 12 The 

 case would be different if he were expressly 

 asked whether he knew of a thing through con- 

 fession. He would then not be allowed to say no 

 because this would be a manifest untruth or 

 might involve a violation of the seal — an un- 

 truth if he really had the knowledge which he 

 was asked to betray; a violation of the seal if he 

 knew nothing about the matter in question. His 

 duty in such an emergency would be to denounce 

 the question as improper and refuse to answer 

 even at the risk of life. 13 



The penitent may permit the confessor to use knowl- 

 edge obtained through sacramental confession, provided 



12 St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, 

 Supplem., qu. 11, art. 1, ad 3: 

 "Homo non adducitur in testi- 

 monium nisi ut homo, et ideo sine 

 laesione conscientiae potest iurare, 

 se nescire, quod scit tantum ut 

 Deus." — St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., 

 1. VI, n. 646. — J. P. Gury, Comp. 

 Theol. Mor., II, n. 497: "Quid con- 

 fessarius respondere debeat inter- 

 roganti de auditis in confessionef 

 Respondeat, etiam cum iuramento, 

 si opus sit. se nihil scire, vel nihil 



audivisse, quia nullatn habet scien- 

 tiam communicabilem. Ita omnes." 

 — G. Estius, Comment, in Sent., IV, 

 dist. 17, n. 14: "Sensus responsi- 

 onis erit: Nescio eo cognitionis 

 modo, secundum quern teneor, tibi 

 interroganti respondere." — Cfr. A. 

 Lehmkuhl, S.J., Casus Conscien- 

 tiae, Vol. I, 2nd ed., n. 574. 



13 Cfr. F. Lorinser, Die Lehre von 

 der Verwaltung des hi. Bussakra- 

 tnentes, 2nd ed., p. 37. 



