we copy them verbatim
from his notes.

FIRST CASE

Dominicus Soto, a very famous canonist and theologian, confessor to
Charles V, present at the first meetings of the Council of Trent under
Paul III, propounds a question about a man who had lost a paper on which
he had written down his sins. It happened that this paper fell into the
hands of an ecclesiastical judge, who wished to put in information
against the writer on the strength of this document. Now this judge was
justly punished by his superior, because confession is so sacred that
even that which is destined to constitute the confession should be
wrapped in eternal silence. In accordance with this precedent, the
following judgment, reported in the 'Traite des Confesseurs', was given
by Roderic Acugno. A Catalonian, native of Barcelona, who was condemned
to death for homicide and owned his guilt, refused to confess when the
hour of punishment arrived. However strongly pressed, he resisted, and so
violently, giving no reason, that all were persuaded that his mind was
unhinged by the fear of death. Saint-Thomas of Villeneuve, Archbishop of
Valencia, heard of his obstinacy. Valencia was the place where his
sentence was given. The worthy prelate was so charitable as to try to
persuade the criminal to make his confession, so as not to lose his soul
as well as his body. Great was his surprise, when he asked the reason of
the refusal, to hear the doomed man declare that he hated confessors,
because he had been condemned through the treachery of his own priest,
who was the only person who knew about the murder. In confession he had
admitted his crime and said where the body was buried, and all about it;
his confessor had revealed it all, and he could not deny it, and so he
had been condemned. He had only just learned, what he did not know at
the time he confessed, that his confessor was the brother of the man he
had killed, and that the desire for vengeance had prompted the bad priest
to betray his confession. Saint-Thomas, hearing this, thought that this
incident was of more importance than the trial, which concerned the life
of only one person, whereas the honour of religion was at stake, with
consequences infinitely more important. He felt he must verify this
statement, and summoned the confessor. When he had admitted the breach
of faith, the judges were obliged to revoke their sentence and pardon the
criminal, much to the gratifi