to see the unfortunate person to change his mind and save his soul. He was, however, very surprised when he finally learned the delinquent's ground for refusal. The prisoner said to him, namely, that he despised confessions, just because confessions themselves are the cause of his death sentence. No human being in the world knew about the murder for which he now will be executed. However, he felt obliged to recognize fully his misdeed to the priest in a confession, and he did not have any scruple giving precisely this priest all the details and even the place where he has buried the murdered person.
The priest was, as it has been established later on, a brother of the killed person, and in an unfortunate manner, out of revenge, betrayed the secrecy of confession and told everything to the authorities. Any denial was in such case vain; and now, because of his confessions, he must die of a shameful death. The Abbot of Saint Thomas of Villeneuve hold this detail for more important than the whole trial. This trial concerned only the punishment of an individual human being; this episode with the priest, however, was under the authority of religion itself. He allowed the priest to come before him, and after he received from this one the admission of his betrayal, he motivated the judges to retract their judgement and to declare the wrongdoer free. The confessor would be punished; however, his punishment would be softened, because he recognized, repenting, the responsibility of his action.
In the year 1579, an innkeeper in Toulouse killed one of his guests and buried him secretly in his cellar, without anyone in the house remarking anything. Shortly afterwards, he confessed the murder and told to the confessor all the details about what happened. The relatives of the deceased made, in the meantime, all the possible researches and publicly promised, finally, after many fruitless efforts, a great reward to the persons who would give them any information about the missing person. The confessor, attracted by this promise, gave them the secret information that they should only search in the innkeeper's cellar, and will find the corpse of the killed person. People really found the corpse; the innkeeper would be arrested and recognized his act under torture. However, he affirmed steadily that his confessor was the unique person in the world who could have betrayed him. The Parliament of Toulouse recognized with the greatest disapproval the irregular way through which people have brought the criminal under torture, and declared him so far as innocent until people would bring forward other proofs than the ones given by the priest against him. This priest, however, would be sentenced to die on the gallows and to have his body burned. Hence cared this wise tribunal energetically for the security of such an important sacrament.
“Even non-Christian judges in countries where the Christian religion would be tolerated, were convinced of the necessity to keep inviolable a secret confided within the frame of religion, have seen to it that the worldly judge may not make use of such confession, and that the person who desecrates it through betrayal, deserves the sharpest punishment. A young, excellent Turkish man has fell in love with the wife of an Armenian. His intelligence has kept his passion for this beautiful person for a long time in bridle, but it broke out finally into full power. With a bursting flame, he demanded her the fulfillment of his wishes and menaced to kill her and her husband, if she will not hear him. Frightened by this menace which fulfillment she could only all too certainly presage, she found refuge in deceit. She suggested him an encounter in her house at a time where her husband, as she said, would be absent. The lover went to the appointment, armed with his sword and two pistols. Suddenly, the husband appeared, and now, the matter took at once another turn, because the spouses have fortunately evaluated their chance of defeating their enemy. They buried him in their house, and no one knew about the whole incident.
Only that a greedy priest of their religion, to whom they confessed the incident with all the details, was despicable enough to misuse this avowal, that he, with the menace of betraying this unfortunate couple, little by little, deprived them of their whole fortune, and then, as he could not any more extort something from them, finally, betrayed them really to the deceased's father for a considerable amount of money. The Turkish father brought the priest's testimony immediately to the Vizier whose friend he was. This Vizier, equally moved by compassion for the unfortunate couple as by outrage for the shameful priest, called immediately for the Armenian Bishop and asked him what a confession was; how the betrayal of a confession would be punished; and what to do with such people whose crime would be discovered in this manner. The answer of the Bishop was the following:
Confession is an inviolable secret for the Christians; according to their laws, the betrayal of the same will be punished at the stake, and a person accused through betrayal of the confession secrecy is to be freed, because his confession to the priest is a religious duty which nonobservance is punishable with eternal damnation. The Vizier, satisfied with this answer, called immediately for the accused. Trembling and half dead, they threw themselves to his feet and recognized their crime; however, they excused it as a necessity imposed by their honour and accused, at the same time, the priest who misused their avowal, made them into beggars and at the same time, has betrayed them as well. Then, he called for the betraying priest to be brought before him, presented to him the Bishop who, in his presence, once again, gave him the punishment suitable for a confession betrayer and condemned him then to be burned alive, immediately, at a public place.
It is also enlightening to learn that a judge may not use the information obtained through confession, throughout, in a legal trial. What consequences did such use of confession have in the first centuries when confessions would still be openly conducted in front of the whole community? The same judges who were Christians and heard daily such recognitions in front of the community, were constrained to unceasingly apply the sword of Justice for the misdeeds of the confessing person. But the judges did not accept any accusation which was only grounded on the open confession of a repenting sinner.
However, as the moral corruption among the Christians, little by little, broadened; and the enemies of a confessing person misused his public recognition to that end; other proofs had to be investigated upon which the judges could build their accusation; hence, finally, the Church had to change this practice, and used the confessional instead of the public session for confession. Public confession was, hence, annulled only so that no use of it should be made before court.
People must, however, respect equally the written confessions as well as the verbal ones; for in relation to God to whom such confessions are directed, both are truthful confessions. All the theology scholars who have written about this subject, have decided without any limitation that there is not any difference between both. This opinion will be supported by three main grounds. Firstly, a confession must be secured under the seal of discretion, and in that respect, people must also take all the essential dispositions appropriate for a confession, as a draft is already part of a confession, and immediately keep it inviolable; they may not share it with any other human being than a priest who alone is justified to accept a confession. Secondly, precisely because of the same terrible consequences which finally determined the Church to keep the verbal confession under the seal of inviolable discretion, inviolability applies also in the case of the written confession. Indeed, the consequences which people has to fear from the discovery of a written confession, are even more terrible, as knowingly, written proofs are of greater effect than verbal ones.
Thirdly, not the confessor alone is obliged to discretion, but rather also all those who, fortuitously or intentionally, have heard a confession; it is the same with the translators who are used by foreigners for their confession; the translator, in Saint Thomas' opinion, represents so to speak the priest, in so far as the confessions which he brought over to the confessor, was entrusted to him directly.
Now, however, a written confession is in principle nothing else than such a translation (internuntia confessionis, as the theologists say). People entrusted to the written confession the recognition of the sins, in the intention of confiding it later to the confessor. The use of a written confession recommended by a confessor whose trust has been called upon, when he is far away, would be totally annulled by Pope Clement VIII, because such confessions were always linked with many difficulties. But, as long as this practice was valid, everyone was obliged to inviolable silence, while all those who, either through inquisitiveness, fortuitously, or as a person exercising an office, learned something of a confession, have to exercise the strictest discretion.
The accusers of the Marquess were themselves convinced by these irrefutable, enlightening truths, that