F
fingerpainter
Guest
Do people do that?
Whether they do or don’t, do you think the church should allow it?
Whether they do or don’t, do you think the church should allow it?
- Status
E
Eucharisted
Guest
Confession has to be in person. The sinner must face the merciful God, who acts in the priest. (The priest is only the screen between the sinner and God) Certainly you can confess your sins over the phone, but it won’t be a sacramental confession, and it won’t carry the seal of the sacrament either.
M
malphono
Guest
It’s like watching Midnight Mass on the tube. It doesn’t satisfy the obligation.
T
thistle
Guest
NOT possible.
Will NEVER be possible.
L
Lujack
Guest
Why not? Let’s take an extreme case.
A mountain climber is stranded on Mount Everest, dying in the cold. He knows he can’t get back to camp, so he calls his pastor, and asks for confession. Can the priest take his confession?
F
fingerpainter
Guest
that’s what was probably once said about having masses held in English, having female altar servers and lectors, and about lifting the ban on meat on Fridays.
Who knows.
T
teachccd
Guest
Probably no more than he can give him the Eucharist over the phone or baptize him over the phone. The “new” technology of communication cannot override what Christ instituted 2000 years ago. Next question will move into emailing or texting our confessions…
teachccd
T
T700
Guest
Even if it were possible, who would want to? I’d rather not risk having Homeland Security, the FBI, NSA, and the Bell Atlantic operator overhear my confession.
Regarding the climber trapped and dying on a mountain, wouldn’t he attempt to make an act of perfect contrition and trust himself to the mercy of God? One might also suggest going to confession prior to participating in a hazardous sport. Seeing that there are probably few(er) chances to commit mortal sin while hanging from a rope on the side of mountain, surely that would cover him.
Paul
Regarding the climber trapped and dying on a mountain, wouldn’t he attempt to make an act of perfect contrition and trust himself to the mercy of God? One might also suggest going to confession prior to participating in a hazardous sport. Seeing that there are probably few(er) chances to commit mortal sin while hanging from a rope on the side of mountain, surely that would cover him.
Paul
T
teachccd
Guest
No. That’s apples and oranges. The Sacraments are an encounter with Christ and the ordinary ministers are the priests and bishops. For baptism the deacon in the latin rite is also permitted. For matrimony it is the couple themselves. The sacraments are liturgical actions and cannot be done remotely. This cannot change no more than we would ever be able to mail the Eucharist to someone who is homebound.
I can’t imagine calling, texting or emailing Christ. There just has to be a point where our fast paced, want it now attitude has to be put to rest. When a doctor can heal cancer with a phone call then perhaps a priest can heal a sinner in the same manner. I don’t think so…teachccd
L
Lujack
Guest
But those are different cases; those require physical contact between the priest and the person receiving the sacrament. You can’t transmit the Eucharist over the phone, and you can’t shoot water through a satellite.Probably no more than he can give him the Eucharist over the phone or baptize him over the phone. The “new” technology of communication cannot override what Christ instituted 2000 years ago. Next question will move into emailing or texting our confessions…
However, confessions are a different matter. In fact, it isn’t unusual for confession to take place in a setting where the penitent never actually sees the priest. The essential elements of the sacrament are verbal, and all a phone does is change the distance.
A
AHapka
Guest
Padre Pio bilocated to hear the confessions of people dying. I believe that one of them was actually someone on a mountain like your example.
I highly doubt our Lord would allow this ability if it could be done by phone.
L
Lujack
Guest
Well, it certainly couldn’t have been done over the phone with Padre Pio, not by cell phone at least (although the Good Lord dropping a cell phone into a dying climber’s hand with a few choice priests’ numbers programmed in would be a unique miracle…).
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Since the personal encounter is the essential element of confession to a priest, alternates to that will never be allowed, i.m.o. (telephone calls, emails, etc.) We are coming face-to-face with the priest in persona Christi. Anything else is a proxy.
Biblical episodes of confessions similarly exclude proxy arrangements – which in those days could have included a personal messenger announcing sins on behalf of the penitent. Jesus would naturally have asked, “Where is the sinner? Why does he not come to me?”
Even in a court of law, the accused or the self-accusing faces a jury, faces a prosecutor, faces a judge. (Even if you agree in advance to a plea bargain.) Face-to-face encounters are built into both our civil and our religious reconciliation routines. It’s part of accountability and “satisfaction” (completion).
Biblical episodes of confessions similarly exclude proxy arrangements – which in those days could have included a personal messenger announcing sins on behalf of the penitent. Jesus would naturally have asked, “Where is the sinner? Why does he not come to me?”
Even in a court of law, the accused or the self-accusing faces a jury, faces a prosecutor, faces a judge. (Even if you agree in advance to a plea bargain.) Face-to-face encounters are built into both our civil and our religious reconciliation routines. It’s part of accountability and “satisfaction” (completion).
F
fingerpainter
Guest
Great answer. So over the phone beats the purpose of confession anyway because the personal encounter is supposed to represent Christ?
HOwever, originally, the sacrament wasn’t done face to face. I’ve heard of old school confessions held in a pitch black booth type thing, where the penitent spoke into an opaque screen… the point is it wasn’t face to face.
And doesn’t a proxy have to be a person or separate entity? Like a letter? Can’t a phone is just the means, or the channel (?) through which people can “encounter” each other? The same way confessions were heard traditionally through a screen of some sort, can’t the phone line be just like that screen, where confession are heard through?
Does technology automatically destroy the seal of the sacrament?
B
benedictgal
Guest
Confession, like the rest of the sacraments, needs to be through personal contact. Now, that does not mean that using the screen negates this. The penitent and the priest are practically next to each other. You don’t have to touch someone to have that personal contact.
Now, the only time that I have seen a telephone device was in my late grandma’s former parish in Austin. The parish had a ministry to the deaf and so a special device was installed in the confessional to allow the hearing impaired to go to Confession, especially if the confessor did not know sign language. But, I believe that this is the only time that an electronic device is allowed.
Now, the only time that I have seen a telephone device was in my late grandma’s former parish in Austin. The parish had a ministry to the deaf and so a special device was installed in the confessional to allow the hearing impaired to go to Confession, especially if the confessor did not know sign language. But, I believe that this is the only time that an electronic device is allowed.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
I was about to say “no” since the priest’s faculties are limited by canon law to celebrating the sacrament over a close distance. However, after a careful reading of canon law I could not find any relevant canon limiting the distance over which the sacrament can take place. As to faculties, that requirement is apparently dispensed when there is danger of death.
So the question does not appear to be one of canon law, but divine law as to what actually constitutes the sacrament. I am not aware of any treatment of this question by any Church Fathers or Doctors of the Church, since near-instantaneous communication that seems to be part of the sacrament was not possible over great distances - perhaps non-electric bullhorn distance was as far as was physically possible until recently. Nonetheless, Aquinas at least did address the form and matter of the sacrament, and physical proximity was not part of it. While not directed specifically at this question, it’s hard to find anything contrary to the idea in what he said. I found the following passages particularly relevant.
I will however grant that Aquinas is not infallible, and in fact is demonstrably in error on some subjects, so we shouldn’t put too much weight in his writing when examining this topic.
I was also hoping to find this issue addressed by the Vatican, as I thought I had read a document about it a year or two ago - but it may be I was simply reading someone’s post here! Anyway, I found no relevant document using the Vatican website’s new Google search, of “penance telephone” or “penance distance”.
So I would lean toward the idea that the sacrament may be validly celebrated over a distance, so long as the form, matter, and intent are present, and the confessor has proper faculties or there is danger of death. I think more widespread use of this could be of great benefit to those in dire situations, whether mountain climbers like Lujack mentioned, or miners, or those facing ethnic cleansing, or those in say a World Trade Center situation, where they appear doomed by fire or building collapse. However, I also think the Church should explicitly prohibit any celebration of this sacrament without the confessor and penitant in physical proximity other than in dire situations.
- Status