Confession by phone/video call - invalid?

[Gorgias]

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.

However, this seems to be his only objection (at least, the one I found in the citation that @HomeschoolDad provided):

any prelate prohibiting the use of electronic communications devices for in-person confession and absolution needs to explain why priests and penitents have long been allowed to use hearing aids and/or amplifiers in the confessional, both being, obviously, electronic communications devices. What is so categorically different about using a cell-phone for the same purpose and in the same way as a hearing aid?

And, I’ve provided an answer upstream: because hearing aids / amplifiers do not provide a means for the privileged communication in the sacrament to be intercepted surreptitiously by third parties.

 

[Anesti33]

And, I’ve provided an answer upstream: because hearing aids / amplifiers do not provide a means for the privileged communication in the sacrament to be intercepted surreptitiously by third parties.

You don’t do much cybersecurity or SIGINT work, do you?

 

[Gorgias]

You don’t do much cybersecurity or SIGINT work, do you?

Folks can always plant listening devices, sure. However, that’s an example of adding a device in order to snoop. A cell phone is different – intrinsically, the network vendor has the ability to listen in. I’m guessing that the manufacturers of amps and hearing aids can’t flip a switch and start listening to their customers’ conversations, dontcha think…?

 

[Anesti33]

So that’s your distinction now? There are apps which permit secure end-to-end communication. A mobile phone doesn’t need to be used with a voice call. You could even have an app with limited network usage, such as Bluetooth instead of 4G. That would drastically limit the chances of interception.

 

[Gorgias]

So that’s your distinction now?

Same as it always was: ability by the network vendor to snoop.

A mobile phone doesn’t need to be used with a voice call. You could even have an app with limited network usage, such as Bluetooth instead of 4G. That would drastically limit the chances of interception.

The app could have a backdoor or a vulnerability that someone could exploit.

In any case, it’s kinda a stretch to suggest that everyone’s been thinking “bluetooth-enabled third-party app” in the context of the use of cell phones at confession, don’t you think? They’re really thinking “cell phone call”, eh?

 

[Anesti33]

The app could have a backdoor or a vulnerability that someone could exploit.

That isn’t exactly “the provider flipping a switch”, now, is it?

In any case, it’s kinda a stretch to suggest that everyone’s been thinking “bluetooth-enabled third-party app” in the context of the use of cell phones at confession, don’t you think? They’re really thinking “cell phone call”, eh?

There is no reason to leave the Church in the 1920s. If the Church wanted to do it right, she could very well commission an approved app and then specify that only this app is permitted. It would be the Church’s best move since setting the music of the Mass in the vernacular - it would make the app developer rich!

 

[PatK63]

Not true. I used such a confessional many times. Occasionally if you started to hear something I would hum so I didn’t hear.

 

[Gorgias]

That isn’t exactly “the provider flipping a switch”, now, is it?

It’s still the same ballgame: it’s a device which can be used or exploited for third-party interception of conversations.

If the Church wanted to do it right, they could very well commission an approved app and then specify that only this app is permitted.

I’m not gonna hold my breath…

I think that the suggestion being floated is to be physically present (albeit separated by a few feet) and to use a cell phone call to enable personal conversation.

 

[Anesti33]

The question is not that we must be physically present, but whether we can use a device to aid in communicating. Saint Damien of Molokai was shriven from the shoreline by a priest aboard a ship. (She sells seashells…) I imagine that Father Damien and his confessor would really have appreciated a little walkie-talkie at that point.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

And, I’ve provided an answer upstream: because hearing aids / amplifiers do not provide a means for the privileged communication in the sacrament to be intercepted surreptitiously by third parties.

Actually, you have more or less convinced me by now. A closed-circuit telephone receiver inside a confessional is secure in a way that broadcast communication (even Bluetooth), as airtight as it might seem, simply isn’t. Our government has ways of surveilling pretty much anything — there’s a facility in West Virginia that, if I am understanding correctly, can eavesdrop on satellite telephone calls, or at least can detect “chatter”. Who knows what else is possible, that we’re not told about?

Not true. I used such a confessional many times. Occasionally if you started to hear something I would hum so I didn’t hear.

I still don’t think it’s a good idea. It would be helpful for confessionals to have those white-noise apparatuses on the floor, such as are used in some health care settings (counseling, clinical psychology, etc.). Many Americans are notoriously loud talkers, and may find this difficult to set aside even in the confessional.

 

[ReaderT]

PatK63:

Not true. I used such a confessional many times. Occasionally if you started to hear something I would hum so I didn’t hear.

I still don’t think it’s a good idea. It would be helpful for confessionals to have those white-noise apparatuses on the floor, such as are used in some health care settings (counseling, clinical psychology, etc.)

I agree with you - the more concerned a penitent is that his/her confession will be overheard, the less forthright and candid they may be. A prudent priest will take steps to help penitents have a good and complete confession, because what’s being said shouldn’t be overheard anyway.

 

[Gorgias]

It isn’t, as such. My take on it is that it’s an attempt to address social distancing, not “priest in one room, penitent in another.”

Of course, open that door, and I’m jaded enough to expect that some in the Church will turn it into “stay at home and give Father a call,” which isn’t at all what we’re anticipating in this discussion, right?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

PatK63:

Not true. I used such a confessional many times. Occasionally if you started to hear something I would hum so I didn’t hear.

I still don’t think it’s a good idea. It would be helpful for confessionals to have those white-noise apparatuses on the floor, such as are used in some health care settings (counseling, clinical psychology, etc.)

I agree with you - the more concerned a penitent is that his/her confession will be overheard, the less forthright and candid they may be. A prudent priest will take steps to help penitents have a good and complete confession, because what’s being said shouldn’t be overheard anyway.

Actually, I like what the procedure is among at least some Orthodox — for the penitent to stand at the priest’s side, have their head covered by his stole, and whisper their confession to him. This would be sound-proof by its very nature.

Once again, the East comes to the rescue with a fully workable solution we Westerners would never have thought of.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
[/QUOTE]

 

[ReaderT]

Yes, very true. Just to note, for many of us, the priest’s stole only goes over our heads for the absolution prayer, and the rest is open-air - for that reason our priest sends everyone else out of the sanctuary until it’s “their turn”, because the sanctuary is small and the penitent might be concerned about words getting overheard:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[PatK63]

Many modern confession rooms are sound proof. Of course now the doors have to be clear glass!

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Many modern confession rooms are sound proof. Of course now the doors have to be clear glass!

I kind of get the reason why there have to be glass doors, but as far as confidentiality, if you go to communal confession (i.e., standing in line, versus making a private appointment), there’s really no secret as to who went to confession and when. Any bystanders will know. And they won’t give two hoots. The only people to whom this might be of concern, could be young men and women who are looking for faithful Catholic spouses — if he or she goes to confession often, and I do too, that’s someone maybe I need to get to know better!

It’s never been my experience, that Catholics particularly notice or care who receives which sacraments and when. In matters of religion, they are more aloof and self-absorbed than that. We are not a gossipy little church where everyone notices everyone’s moral behavior, speculates on it, and trades stories back and forth with each other — “did you hear what she did? — and look, she’s going to confession!”. Just doesn’t happen. Maybe in some small, old-fashioned villages, but not many of us live in places like that anymore.

 

[Xarto]

It is dangerous because your Confession could be intercepted/overhead and recorded and possibly used against you.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I don’t think so. I know several people who go weekly just for venial sins so my thought is more, “That’s nice. They really care”
[/quote]

Yes, and if you’re looking for a Catholic spouse who will help you get to heaven, someone who won’t challenge you to violate the teachings of the Church, knowing they go to weekly confession would definitely be “points”, or it would be for me, anyway.

 

[PatK63]

@HomeschoolDad
We are a church of repentant sinners! The glass door is to protect the priest from false accusations as much as anything.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I am quite aware of that. That is the “reason” to which I referred.

But just to play the devil’s advocate, being able to see inside the confessional would not prevent a priest —- God forbid —- from making an improper suggestion.