[De veritate dicenda aut tacenda]

If someone keeps something from another outside of confession, as if it were under the seal of confession, some say it must be completely hidden as if one had received it in sacramental confession, although one should not easily accept it in that way. Nevertheless, I think that since it is not an actual sacramental confession, although one sins by receiving it incautiously, if the danger of many souls were imminent, or if a great danger to the state were to arise from such concealment, one should publish it. Knowing that although he might break faith with one person, he is more strictly bound to keep faith with the community. And he should repent of the violation of the former faith, even if he had bound himself to it by an oath, which in such a case ought not to be kept. So too, one who has sworn badly and follows an illicit path violates this oath.

On not concealing things entrusted in confidence

The fifth proposal: Someone who knows, in secret and outside of confession, matters entrusted to him that result in great bodily or spiritual danger to a multitude, or in grave harm to some leader or ruler of the multitude by which the community is injured, is bound to reveal it immediately or to denounce it to someone who can prevent this, without, however, the public identification of the person who committed it, if possible. If, however, it cannot be done without the publication of this person, he must publish it nonetheless. For he could not be obligated to conceal it in such a case, even if he had taken an oath to him, which in such a case would have been illicit. For by concealing it in such a case, he would violate the faith which he had previously pledged to another, namely to the community or the prince. Nevertheless, such a person receiving something under that pledge could first warn the one from whom he received it in secret to cease from such a crime before betraying him, because it would not be permitted for him to keep silent about those things.