Confession via IT or Telephone?

[Tantum_ergo]

The Sacrement is still the Sacrament. So long as there is a physical reality of presence between the Confessor and penitent then it is valid if that is the only channel available to receive it.

Could you be a little clearer? What do you mean by “physical reality of presence” for a sacrament? (Blessings are not comparable to sacraments). There have been several posts that have said that there can be no ‘sacrament’ via internet/telephone. From the Vatican. Pretty impressive source.

 

[jmcrae]

What would happen if when the NASA astronauts land on Mars, or go to a land station on the moon and a Catholic Astronaut decides he needs confession.

The Bishop of Orlando would advise him of what to do, since outer space is under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Orlando. If it were physically possible, I suppose that a priest from the Diocese of Orlando would be sent to him to give him the Sacraments.

Actually in my case which started this thread, I was mysteriously invited by our Priest outside from Work time.

YAAY, praise the Lord!!

I thought it was very good of him as he administered the Sacrament on Holy Saturday, which of course is not approved of by the Church.

I have never heard of this.

The Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults states that Confession must be available to those being received into the Church on Holy Saturday, and can be made available to others (such as their sponsors, etc.) at the same time.

At our parish, it was made available during the hour before the start of the Vigil Mass to the whole parish.

So, he had gone to some lengths to ensure I was able to receive Our Blessed Lord at the Vigil and again tomorrow at the Mass of the Day.

:extrahappy:

I’m glad there was a happy ending!

 

[Sixtus]

I’m glad there was a happy ending!

More than that, it was awesome.

I was overcome with emotion, when I took the Chalice, my hands trembled.It was absolutely awesome.

Receiving the Body and Blood of Christ is the most awesome experience I have ever encountered. As I get older, it becomes more so

 

[johnnykins]

Here is one problem: Jurisdiction. From New Advent:

In the case of the internet or telephone, how is one to regulate whether a person is in the jurisdiction of the priest to whom he confesses?

a possible issue indeed - but assuming the priest is within the appropriate jurisdiction - it seems to me to present no barrier.

From further in New Advent:
(

The priest, you see, is the key. Not just his ‘voice’ or a presence somewhere. . .otherwise, ‘written’ confession/absolution letters would be permitted, and clearly they are not. Further, the penitent must meet with the priest, face to face, in secret confession.

I have to diagree - you are reading much more into this statement than is there. BTW I seem to recall that a written confession is allowed to a mute penitent who can write. I really think the matter adressed in your article is related to the public nature of the reading and not the mere mechanism of communication.

So: There is no jurisdiction for ‘internet’ or ‘phone’ confession. There is the requirement for penitent to confess to the priest, alone, in secret confession.

Again, I think you are reading too much into this. A private phone conversation certainly in normal circumstances seems to meet “alone, and in secret confession.”

I don’t think this has disposed the issue yet.

 

[johnnykins]

More, this from the USCCB:

*The Secretariat for the Liturgy has received several inquiries concerning the celebration of the sacraments via various types of electronic communication. The celebration of the Sacrament of Penance via telephone, participation in Mass via television or the celebration of the Sacrament of Confirmation via video conference have on occasion been proposed. However, electronic communication via telephone, television, video conference or internet is not sufficient for the celebration of the sacraments. The celebration of the sacraments requires the physical and geographic presence of both the gathered faithful and the bishop, priest, deacon or other presiding minister. *

Liturgical celebrations depend upon the physical presence of the gathered faithful. While the Ceremonial of Bishops enthusiastically recommends large diocesan liturgical celebrations the emphasis is always placed on the invitation to the faithful to gather. Indeed, the idea of gathering of the members of Christ’s faithful in one place is fundamental to the celebration of the Liturgy.

The faithful from different areas of the dioceses should be invited to gather and, as far as possible, the priests should join them. To encourage and make more convenient gatherings of the faithful and the priests, arrangement should be made for gatherings of this kind at different times in the various parts of the diocese." (Ceremonial of Bishops 13)
Thus the ritual for the Sacrament of Confirmation calls for the entrance song to take place “after the people have assembled.” The clear presumption is that the people are physically present and in the gathering are enabled to enter into a relationship with each other and the priest in the sacramental action.

Liturgical celebrations require the physical presence of the bishop, priest, deacon or the approved presiding minister. The multiple dialogues between priest and people which are at the heart of all Christian liturgy require the physical presence of “the bishop, either in person or through the priests who are his helpers.” ("episcopo sive per seipsum, sive per presbyteros adiutores ipsius."General Instruction of the Roman Missal 59)

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, number 5, states that “It is of the greatest importance that the celebration of the Mass, the Lord’s Supper, be so arranged that the ministers and the faithful may take their own proper part in it and thus gain its fruits more fully.” The part of the priest celebrant would seem to be characterized first by his physical presence in order that he might enter into the necessary relationships with the gathered faithful and their God which form the basis of Christian worship. Electronic projections appear to lack a capacity for communication on the level of word, action and physical perception which are natural to those who are physically present.

Some might suggest that an electronic “presence,” especially when oral and visual communication is made possible through electronic means, is sufficient. While the use of media can lessen the impact or temper the limitations of distance and time, it also affects the way things are perceived. What people come to know and experience is not reality as such, but what they are shown. (cf. The Pontifical Council on Culture’s recent instruction Towards a Pastoral Approach to Culture, no. 9).

The liturgy, however, requires a full, conscious and active participation which demands the presence of the whole person in contact with the reality (not merely an image or concept) of the saving presence of Christ. A “live” telecast of an event allows a limited kind of “presence” for the viewer, but the viewer is very aware that he or she is not “really there” in the same manner as those physically present at the event. Effective participation and communication require that one be “present at” and “present to” the reality to be experienced.

As regular participants in video conferences report, electronic communication is incapable of transmitting the full range of human communication. As the ancient maxim ubi episcopus, ibi ecclesia implies, true “presence” is physical and geographical by definition.

This is something at last getting to the issue. I do wish that the statement had concentrated a bit more on confession - it seems to be an aside in a discussion of Mass and the other sacraments which, unlike penance, seem to demand physical presence by their nature in a more direct way.

That being said, the US Bishops, at least, seem to have come out against the practice. I’m not sure that it is dispositive, but it certainly is an important and, on Americans at least, possibly binding statement.

 

[jmcrae]

Again, I think you are reading too much into this. A private phone conversation certainly in normal circumstances seems to meet “alone, and in secret confession.”

Telephones are usually located in public areas. Ours is in the living room of our home. I have often thought I was alone in the house while speaking on the telephone (which is naturally a little bit louder than normal speech, in order to be heard at the other end) only to have my husband walk in from the kitchen.

The priest at his end is most likely in a similar situation - a staff member of the Church could walk into his office while he is giving you advice, or assigning your penance.

I am also under the impression that in our post-9-11 world, telephone and e-mail messages are kept on file by the American Homeland Security for several months, until they have been cleared of any terrorist connections - so it is probably best to simply assume that one’s telephone calls are part of the public record, along with all e-mails, and treat them accordingly.

 

[Cradle]

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/pccs/documents/rc_pc_pccs_doc_20020228_church-internet_en.html

Beautiful!

And a quote from the document:

Virtual reality is no substitute for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacramental reality of the other sacraments, and shared worship in a flesh-and-blood human community. There are no sacraments on the Internet; and even the religious experiences possible there by the grace of God are insufficient apart from real-world interaction with other persons of faith.