Note 663 — Chapter I · THE ESSENTIAL DUTIES OF THE CONFESSOR IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS OFFICE; OR, THE CONFESSOR CONSIDERED IN HIS OFFICE OF JUDGE

Cf. Lugo, Disp. 22, n. 22; Elbel, De Sacram. in gen. confer. 2, n. 44 et de Pœnit. n. 453; Laymann, Lib. V. Tract. 6, cp. 14, n. 24; Mazzotta, Tr. 6, Disp. 2, Q. 2, cp. 2, § 3; Billuart, Diss. 6, art. 10, § 2; Gury, l. c.; Aertnys, l. c. n. 278. Lehmkuhl (l. c. n. 429) says that, considered by itself, the confessor may but is not obliged to adopt the opinion of St. Alphonsus; that there is only this point in its favor, that without inconveniencing the penitent, or without revealing the other confession, sacrilege can be avoided. But the penitent commits a sacrilege whether the confessor gives him absolution or not. On the other hand, the administration of the absolution by the confessor is only a material coöperation, and one cannot oblige him, in order to avoid this, to make use of knowledge gained from the confession of another. Cf. Gobat, l. c. Tract. 7, n. 875.