Could confession over the telephone be allowed under certain circumstances?

[Blind_Didymus]

I realise that the Catholic Church doesn’t allow confession over the telephone (or the internet or by any other means other than in person). What I’m wondering is whether there is or could ever be grounds for allowing such?

I ask this question having read in numerous places of people who, for one reason or another, can’t get to confession. Given that the Code of Canon Law (844) allows a Catholic for whom it is physically or morally impossible to confess to a Catholic priest to instead confess to an Orthodox priest (provided that priest were willing and able to hear, e.g. if one were visiting Armenia), then is it not only logical those same reasons (i.e. impossibility to get to confession) should also permit a Catholic who voluntarily wished so to do and understood the possible risks to confess over the telephone?

The reason I’m asking this question is that generally the Orthodox Church does not allow confession over the phone either. In spite of this, throughout the last 8 and a half years since I was baptised, my priest has been more than willing for me to confess over the phone. When I first read a statement by an Orthodox bishop against confessing over the phone, I asked my priest of this. He said that if I were living around the corner then I ought not to confess over the phone, but seeing that I live in a different state, economia applies.
(For those who aren’t familiar with economia, it’s a concept in the Orthodox Church which basically means that the usual rules can be relaxed in the spirit of grace when rigidly enforcing them would be of no spiritual benefit or even detrimental.)

Everything I’ve read on why confession over the phone is not allowed appears to have only limited application or simply isn’t a sensible reason at all.
The best reason I’ve found relates to the Seal of the confessional (which is applied just as firmly in the East as in the West). However the Seal only binds the priest to silence. If the penitent wants to publish a book of his confessions the Seal in no way prevents him. Thus the argument that secrecy can’t be guaranteed over the phone (or online, etc.) is invalid given that the person confessing would no doubt know this and freely choose to confess anyway.
The argument that one can’t be sure the person on the phone is the priest is flimsy so long as the number one calls is only used by the priest and one knows him well enough to recognise his voice (and the priest knows the penitent likewise).
The argument that confession is a personal encounter with Christ through the priest and therefore must be in person is even more illogical as Christ is not unable to cope with modern technology and one can still encounter Christ through the priest over the phone.
I’m unsure what Western practice is regarding absolution but in the Coptic Church the priest ordinarily lays his hands on the head of the penitent and makes the sign on the cross on the penitent’s head while pronouncing the absolution. Obviously the physical aspect can’t be done over the phone however my priest says this does not prevent God’s merciful love from acting anyway.

What are other people’s thoughts on this please?

[Note: If this is in the wrong section, please move it. Thank you.]

 

[SAVINGRACE]

"Confession on the telephone or by e-mail is not permitted by the Church for a couple of reasons.

First, the sacrament of confession is a personal encounter with Jesus in which he:

personally addresses every sinner: “My son, your sins are forgiven.” He is the physician tending each one of the sick who need him to cure them. He raises them up and reintegrates them into fraternal communion. Personal confession is thus the form most expressive of reconciliation with God and with the Church. (CCC 1484)

Second, maintaining secrecy is essential. The “Church declares that every priest who hears confessions is bound under very severe penalties to keep absolute secrecy regarding the sins that his penitents have confessed to him” (CCC 1467). E-mail, the Internet, and telephones are never completely private.

The Pontifical Council on Social Communications on The Church and Internet says:

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." (9)

catholic.com/quickquestions/why-cant-priests-hear-confessions-through-electronic-media-such-as-telephone-e-mail-o

 

[GEddie]

I think that the security issue – such media can never be made fully secure – would per se rule out permitting this, theological issues notwithstanding.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Blind_Didymus]

Thank you for taking the time to reply however I see that neither of you read all of my original post, or that if you did then you did not comprehend it. For all of the concerns you raised I have already addressed in my original post.

It is well know how St Pope John Paul II, as a priest in Poland, heard confessions in confessional booths wherein the political authorities had placed listening devices (i.e. they were bugged). Nobody argues that the confessions he heard there were invalid because outsiders were listening in. One of the spies sent to trap him even converted as a result of what he heard and apologised to him.

As I said in the original post, only the priest is bound to keep confessions secret. The penitent is not bound to do so. Hence why confessions heard in bugged confessionals are still valid. For most people, one’s own phone today is less likely to be tapped than a confessional booth in Communist Poland.

In regards to the other matters raised, please see my original post for I have already addressed all of those issues.

So far, no logical reason has been provided for why confession via telephone should not be allowed under certain circumstances.

Please note, you’re welcome to consider this as a theoretical question if you like as I realise that most people are not in situations where it is physically or morally impossible to confess in person.

Thank you again for your efforts and I look forward to hearing from someone who has taken the time to consider this matter in greater depth. If this section of the forums turns out not to be frequented by people who consider matters in such a way, after a while I may try another section of the forums instead. Thank you either way for your best efforts.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Thank you for taking the time to reply however I see that neither of you read all of my original post, or that if you did then you did not comprehend it. For all of the concerns you raised I have already addressed in my original post.

It is well know how St Pope John Paul II, as a priest in Poland, heard confessions in confessional booths wherein the political authorities had placed listening devices (i.e. they were bugged). Nobody argues that the confessions he heard there were invalid because outsiders were listening in. One of the spies sent to trap him even converted as a result of what he heard and apologised to him.

As I said in the original post, only the priest is bound to keep confessions secret. The penitent is not bound to do so. Hence why confessions heard in bugged confessionals are still valid. For most people, one’s own phone today is less likely to be tapped than a confessional booth in Communist Poland.

In regards to the other matters raised, please see my original post for I have already addressed all of those issues.

So far, no logical reason has been provided for why confession via telephone should not be allowed under certain circumstances.

Please note, you’re welcome to consider this as a theoretical question if you like as I realise that most people are not in situations where it is physically or morally impossible to confess in person.

Thank you again for your efforts and I look forward to hearing from someone who has taken the time to consider this matter in greater depth. If this section of the forums turns out not to be frequented by people who consider matters in such a way, after a while I may try another section of the forums instead. Thank you either way for your best efforts.

It may not be logical to you but that is the reason the Church gives and whether you or I agree or disagree with it is irrelevant. It’s not permitted.

Not sure what you want us to say.

Confession is not required every week and is only mandatory for mortal sins. That person can wait till a Priest gets to them or they get to a priest.

It’s a sin to deliberately move yourself away from where you have limited or no access to the Sacraments.

 

[TimothyH]

Whether it is permitted or not, I would never do it.

-Tim-

 

[1ke]

The answer is no.

The Church has ruled that this is not a valid way of hearing confession. The priest and penitent must be together in the same location. This has nothing to do with secrecy of confession. It has everything to do with the essential elements of the sacrament.

Sacraments require valid form and valid matter. The Church has determined that “over the phone” does not create a valid sacrament.

 

[SecretGarden]

Although the Catholic church doesn’t allow it, we also need to take a pastoral perspective meaning what if the person has an infectious disease, or the person is so ill that there isn’t enough time for the priest to arrive at his or her bedside to hear their confession before they die. There are a few cases due to pastoral needs of the individual when the rules need to be ignored.

These days in some cases, priests know the people inside their congregation because many are not opting for confessing inside the confessional, they are doing it on-one therefore they know the person who is giving their confessional. Giving a scheduled confession on the phone may not be that anonymous as one may think.

I’m sure in these cases, although it isn’t discussed, it does happen occasionally especially with the shortage of priests we are experiencing.

Sometimes we need to realize that although the rules are there, there are also exceptions to the rules when people’s souls or lives are at risk. For example, what if the person has an infectious disease and, the safest way for a confession to be given might be over the telephone or even Skype? This might be the best option because it protects the priest from contracting whatever the person has and giving it to someone else. Secondly, what if the person is dying and there isn’t enough time for the priest to arrive, again, confession by telephone might be the best option. It’s not perfect, but if it will help the person find peace before they die, who are we to judge? We can’t forget that God’s grace works in these cases.

 

[1ke]

Although the Catholic church doesn’t allow it, we also need to take a pastoral perspective meaning what if the person has an infectious disease, or the person is so ill that there isn’t enough time for the priest to arrive at his or her bedside to hear their confession before they die. There are a few cases due to pastoral needs of the individual when the rules need to be ignored.

These days in some cases, priests know the people inside their congregation because many are not opting for confessing inside the confessional, they are doing it on-one therefore they know the person who is giving their confessional. Giving a scheduled confession on the phone may not be that anonymous as one may think.

I’m sure in these cases, although it isn’t discussed, it does happen occasionally especially with the shortage of priests we are experiencing.

Sometimes we need to realize that although the rules are there, there are also exceptions to the rules when people’s souls or lives are at risk. For example, what if the person has an infectious disease and, the safest way for a confession to be given might be over the telephone or even Skype? This might be the best option because it protects the priest from contracting whatever the person has and giving it to someone else. Secondly, what if the person is dying and there isn’t enough time for the priest to arrive, again, confession by telephone might be the best option. It’s not perfect, but if it will help the person find peace before they die, who are we to judge? We can’t forget that God’s grace works in these cases.

It’s not about “rules”. It is about the form and matter of the sacrament.

It isn’t VALID via phone or Skype or email or instant message or text or any other means than a priest and a penitent in the same place giving an in person confession.

It seems ‘not valid’ isn’t registering with people. An attempt to confess via these means is not valid.

Just as trying to consecrate rice cakes and Coca-Cola is not valid. Just as trying to ordain a woman or marry two people of the same sex is not valid. Just as baptizing in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier is not valid. Just like me trying to confirm or anoint someone is not valid.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

It’s not about “rules”. It is about the form and matter of the sacrament.

It isn’t VALID via phone or Skype or email or instant message or text or any other means than a priest and a penitent in the same place giving an in person confession.

It seems ‘not valid’ isn’t registering with people. An attempt to confess via these means is not valid.

Just as trying to consecrate rice cakes and Coca-Cola is not valid. Just as trying to ordain a woman or marry two people of the same sex is not valid. Just as baptizing in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier is not valid. Just like me trying to confirm or anoint someone is not valid.

The OP is citing the case where St Pope JP II was a young priest during WWII he heard confessions where the confession box was bugged and apparently these confessions are still valid. No source or evidence of this was provided though.

 

[1ke]

The OP is citing the case where St Pope JP II was a young priest during WWII he heard confessions where the confession box was bugged and apparently these confessions are still valid. No source or evidence of this was provided though.

Of course the confession was valid. It was in person in a confessional.

That’s not what the question is about. The question is about confession over the telephone, which is NOT valid and can never be valid.

 

[Mary_Ellen]

Form and matter, as 1ke said.

Here’s a similar situation: Attendance at Liturgy is required of all Catholics on Sundays and other Holy Days of Obligation, whether the person receives communion or not. Watching Mass on television does not fulfill the obligation. It’s a good thing to do but it does not fulfill the obligation. Receiving communion at home doesn’t fulfill the obligation, either, a person actually has to go to Mass.
Circumstances of life, such as illness or physical disability, can remove (that’s probably not the right word) the obligation for one or multiple occasions but that doesn’t mean watching Mass on TV on Sunday from a hospital bed actually fulfills the obligation, it’s only a good spiritual substitute.

 

[dans0622]

Yes, it is understood that a remote confession/absolution is not allowed and is not valid.

That being said at the outset, there is actually not much out there in terms of “official” decisions/statements on this question. Reference is often made to a statement from the Apostolic Penitentiary which said that a “physical immediacy of the subject” is a constitutive element of this Sacrament (circular letter dated Oct. 23, 2002). It is not really the place of the Penitentiary, though, to proffer decisions on the validity/invalidity of Sacraments.

It is perhaps more informative to refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church which says that this Sacrament is a liturgical action (Catechism 1480). It doesn’t seem possible to have a “liturgical action” when those who are necessary for that action aren’t together in the same place, working together.

This topic doesn’t really get into the question of form and matter. It is commonly said that the matter of this Sacrament are the acts of the penitent (contrition, confession, satisfaction) and the form is the absolution by the priest. Whether or not the parties are in the same room, in different rooms communicating through a screen (maybe even using devices to help the hard of hearing), or 20 miles apart, or whatever, doesn’t eliminate form or matter. It would seem to me that as long as the penitent confessed sins to a priest and the priest absolves, form and matter are in order.

Dan

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Of course the confession was valid. It was in person in a confessional.

That’s not what the question is about. The question is about confession over the telephone, which is NOT valid and can never be valid.

Read his post again. He is arguing that in retrospect it cannot be valid because someone was listening in.

I have personally witnessed a public confession in the middle of the street in Sydney during World Youth Day. A man in an expensive suit and briefcase, stopped a Priest and went through the motions for around 10minutes with hundreds of people walking by. I wasn’t Catholic then, my friend who is explained what we were witnessing.

 

[Blind_Didymus]

The OP is citing the case where St Pope JP II was a young priest during WWII he heard confessions where the confession box was bugged and apparently these confessions are still valid. No source or evidence of this was provided though.

My friend, the East has taught me that truth remains true regardless of whether or not one is able to state how or where knowledge of the truth has come from After all, did anyone really know where Christ came from during his ministry on the earth?

But to answer your question, it is shown in one of the films about Pope John Paul II. I’m not sure which one but if you watch all of them you’re bound to find it. I think it is “Karol: A Man Who Became Pope” so that may be a good place to start if you really want to find out.

Alternatively, you could just believe that I am not lying, especially seems it is well known that Communist authorities bugged just about everything everywhere in some places.

 

[Pat_Payne]

He is arguing that in retrospect it cannot be valid because someone was listening in.

This is not something to be talked about only in Communist dictatorships – a number of prison Confessions in Portland, OR were secretly recorded by the DOC without the priest or penitent knowing it. The tapes have been sealed by court order (as the courts recognized this was a gross violation of religious liberty), though they have not been ordered destroyed as they probably should be. Still and all, the Confessions were valid so long as the priest and penitent had the proper intention for the Sacrament.

 

[Blind_Didymus]

Read his post again. He is arguing that in retrospect it cannot be valid because someone was listening in.

I have personally witnessed a public confession in the middle of the street in Sydney during World Youth Day. A man in an expensive suit and briefcase, stopped a Priest and went through the motions for around 10minutes with hundreds of people walking by. I wasn’t Catholic then, my friend who is explained what we were witnessing.

To clarify, I am saying that confession should be valid regardless of who is listening.
My argument rather is that it is contradictory to say that “somebody might be listening in” makes confession over the phone invalid when “somebody was definately listening in” did not make confessions in bugged confessionals invalid.

It’s not about “rules”. It is about the form and matter of the sacrament.

Matters of form and matter are rules. It seems you have missed the point SecretGarden was trying to make. That is that the letter of the law ought not to quench the spirit of God.

It would seem to me that as long as the penitent confessed sins to a priest and the priest absolves, form and matter are in order.

Your reasoning is logical.

It is perhaps more informative to refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church which says that this Sacrament is a liturgical action (Catechism 1480). It doesn’t seem possible to have a “liturgical action” when those who are necessary for that action aren’t together in the same place, working together.

May I please ask how you come to this conclusion? In our days, people regularly work together on a project while in completely different places. Historically, armies worked together while facing battles on different fronts. There are many ways to work together while being in different places.

 

[Blind_Didymus]

Just to throw another spanner in the works, canon 844 permits a Catholic (in certain circumstances) to confess to an Orthodox priest.
Now Orthodoxy allows confessions over the phone.
So this would imply that a Catholic could validly confess to an Orthodox priest over the phone (circumstances permitting) but not to a Catholic priest.
This seems a little silly :ehh:

 

[e_c]

Just to throw another spanner in the works, canon 844 permits a Catholic (in certain circumstances) to confess to an Orthodox priest.
Now Orthodoxy allows confessions over the phone.
So this would imply that a Catholic could validly confess to an Orthodox priest over the phone (circumstances permitting) but not to a Catholic priest.
This seems a little silly

It means no such thing. It would be invalid to confess over the phone, no matter what the circumstances or Church.

It can never be done over a phone, because it is not actually my voice that is being heard, nor am I actually hearing Father’s voice. He’s hearing a digital code that has been modified and processed, and vice versa. “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.” ALL SACRAMENTS require physical presence for this reason - in persona Christi capitis requires incarnationality. The digitalization of it renders it Protestant, or even worse, monophysitic.

Sacramentals are different. Papal blessings over television, for instance. We can start another thread to discuss that… It would be interesting.

BTW - Private confession was popularized by the Irish (you’re welcome!)… It used to be a public affair.

 

[pnewton]

I have been trying to find this somewhere that the Church has said, and have failed. Does anyone have any Church document that says such a confession would be invalid? I know it is illicit and will probably always be. However, if it is not invalid, and as of yet, I have not found this to be true, then there could be in theory some situation where such a confession might take place. One theoretical case I read of was a man trapped and doomed to die on a submarine making confession over the radio.

I think we need to trust that the Church’s reasons for confession being in person are best for us, while at the same time understanding that in all things, the “law was made for Man”.