test case, though it is well known that there have been martyrs to the seal of confession. In minor matters, of course, the confessor interprets his obligation generously. One of our friars, the superior of a monastery, interrupted an inferior who was confessing to him, made him stand up and repeat extra sigillum, a certain fault for which he wished to inflict a public penance: it was a breach of the seal, though my colleague was too subtle a casuist to admit it. I remember a priest who was confessor to an acquaintance of mine once saying to me of her: ‘Miss —— seems to be a very well educated person, she speaks quite smoothly on the most delicate points.’ I doubt whether my friend would have cared for me to know so much of her confession.
However, once the danger of identifying the individual concerned is precluded, the confessor is free to make whatever use he pleases of his acquired knowledge. It is added in theological works that it is extremely imprudent to discuss such matters before seculars, but that is only part of the economia of the priest with regard to the laity, not a moral obligation. And amongst themselves priests discuss their interesting experiences very freely; the professor of casuistry is usually a man of wide experience who gives his students the full benefit thereof. In their conferences they are most generous with their experiences. To discuss the relative wickedness of town and country, of large cities, of localities in a city is a
