Ever since the pandemic arose, I have had an issue with prohibiting confession via cell phone where the confessor and the penitent are in the same general vicinity (6 to 12 feet or thereabouts), and can even see one another if no screen is used, with the cell phone being used solely to facilitate audible conversation that cannot be overheard by others. I have heard objections based upon confidentiality and the alleged unsecure nature of phone conversation, but I remain unconvinced. Priests and penitents can easily be heard by nearby persons (e.g., in line to go to confession) if they raise their voices ever so slightly, which seems to be more and more prevalent nowadays, and there are always the old dual confession booths with penitents on either side of the priest, as well as the open confessionals you will see in Europe and elsewhere. Yet nobody seems to have a problem with that, even though the confession is far more likely to be heard by a third party, than over a cell phone with digital encryption (I’m not sure whether analog cell phones even exist anymore).Dr. Ed Peters has written extensively on the topic, and opines in his latest two blog posts:
In the Light of the Law – 1 Apr 20
Some thoughts on COVID measures in regard to Confession and how such measures…
The COVID19 pandemic continues to occasion new canonical questions on a daily basis. But before examining a few more of these, here in regard to Confession, a crucial point should be made. It is ve…
I hadn’t thought of that, but the same lack of confidentiality (i.e., whether the penitent went to confession or not, and who the priest was) would exist either by using security cameras in the church with recorded activity, or simply by someone inside the church who saw the priest enter the confessional, and then saw people going into and coming out of the confessional. I would certainly hope that churches, especially in heavily-traveled urban areas with many people coming and going during the day, would be doing recorded video surveillance. Such recordings can be invaluable in identifying perpetrators, whether it is someone robbing an ATM or a convenience store, shoplifters (when I was a retail manager, I set up a system with a VCR and cameras on the ceiling so I would have proof of thievery), or people vandalizing or disturbing the peace in a church.
Not sure about morally required but certainly it’s something which a bishop would want to know about.
The Sacrament can’t be administered remotely but it’s still perfectly possible for a person to receive spiritual direction remotely. If the Sacrament itself is being simulated invalidly then that is something the bishop should know about, but that is very unlikely.
Yes, I’m “unconvinced”. To my mind, a cell phone used in visual proximity to a priest, at a certain common-sense social distance, is no different from a hearing-impaired person (or priest) using a telephone receiver inside the confessional. It’s basically a quibble over how sound waves should be conveyed from one point to another, and in what manner they should be processed, to get them between those two points. Did not Father Damien shout his confession to a priest in a ship some distance away when he was quarantined due to Hansen’s Disease? It’s not a matter of doctrine. It is merely a matter of church order. It is of the same species, as if I disagreed that a diocese should have been split, that a parish church was built in this location instead of that, that they should have put padding in the pews when they didn’t (or vice versa), or that the Pope should have appointed Bishop X instead of Bishop Y to preside over Diocese Z. I don’t think anyone argues that such a confession would be invalid. Illicit, yes, invalid, no. (I will stand corrected on the latter argument.)
That’s quite right. If you go to confession in the traditional manner, people will see you going in, and they’ll very likely know which priest is hearing confessions (some parishes have a sign on the door with the priest’s name). Confidentiality with regard to “Father X heard Joe Blow’s confession” isn’t really possible in such circumstances. If you want that kind of confidentiality, make an appointment and see the priest privately.
The problem is that the conversation can be intercepted by the network vendor, and not only listened to, but recorded. Worse yet, it can be done surreptitiously. That’s the reason why cell phones – even at a six- or twelve-foot distance, cannot be used for the sacrament of reconciliation.
Because prominent canonists such as Dr. Ed Peters believe there is a good basis for permitting such practices as you mention, in narrow and well-controlled cases.