[De veritate dicenda aut tacenda]

On concealing things entrusted in confidence

The sixth proposal: Things entrusted in confidence, in cases other than what has been mentioned, must be kept inviolably secret and must not be revealed, because this is of natural law: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Nor can a superior command the contrary of that which is of natural law. And if he were to command it, one should not obey him at all, and he would sin mortally, violating the faith pledged to him. Indeed, the prelate would not be excused from mortal sin, because he would be impelling another to sin mortally, especially if scandal or harm to anyone in their affairs, body, or dignity were to follow from this. Thomas, in Quodlibeta scholastic questions, question 3, asks whether a religious is bound to reveal a secret of his faith entrusted to him to a prelate commanding it. He responds: Sufficient obedience is, according to Bernard in his book On Precept and Dispensation, that a religious should obey his prelate in those things which pertain to the rule, either directly, such as those things written in the rule, or indirectly, such as those things which can be reduced to the rule, like mysteries to be shown by strengths, and penalties inflicted for faults, and the like.

Perfect obedience is to obey the prelate simply in all things which are not against God and against the rule. But it is incautious and illicit obedience if someone obeys a prelate against God or against the rule.

To the point, therefore: there is a secret which it is illicit to conceal, such as that which tends toward the danger of others whom someone is bound to look out for.

Hence, it is also contained in an oath of fidelity that a lord ought to reveal such secrets, and the bond of charity demands this.

Wherefore, a religious is bound to reveal such things to a prelate who can obstruct them, even if he promised not to reveal them, as Isidore says.