No confessions by phone, please Probable invalidity of the absolution

[twf]

My aunt, who is Orthodox, has confessed and received absolution over the phone during the pandemic. It’s fascinating. Generally we tend to see the Orthodox as more “conservative” and Catholicism as more “liberal”… and on a score of issues, in simplistic terms, that’s true. But there are some areas where the Orthodox are really willing to “bend” the rules in the name of “economy”, while we put a firm line in the sand.

 

[MrsAngelala]

Setting aside the fact that any kind of phone communication can be overheard by people (doctors, nurses) it can also, in being ‘over the airwaves’ heard by anybody who happens to have the tech know how or simply through accident

Just a small note that confessions can also be overheard in-person. Some people are loud in the confessional; many confessionals are not terribly soundproof. At my church I sit as far away from the confessional as necessary, sometimes moving further away when a particularly loud person begins talking. I don’t believe that confessions should be made over the phone, but eavesdroppers are not a problem limited to phone use.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

talking in the circumstance where each is entirely dependent on hearing aids on the one hand, and talking on the telephone on the other?

Hearing aids are far less likely to be wiretapped (or otherwise inadvertently transfer a sound to someone else’s call, recording device, etc). All they are is an amplification device that allows your ear to hear nearby sounds more loudly.

When you talk on your cell phone, or your POTS phone, your voice is not just jumping the 15 feet between you and the priest, it’s being transmitted through the phone network and coming out on your priest’s phone even if he’s just 15 feet away.

 

[FiveLinden]

Hearing aids are far less likely to be wiretapped

True! But my question was about validity, not the risks of doing it that way.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The reason why the Church doesn’t permit certain ways of confession is largely because of risk to the seal of confession.

Also, as someone else said, I believe absolution would require a physical presence, as is the case with other sacraments. That’s the other reason why.

 

[FiveLinden]

So how about writing down a confession and absolution from several metres away?

 

[Bernoulli]

So how about writing down a confession and absolution from several metres away?

I think it is valid. It can even be dozens of metres but not hundreds.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I would think that if social distancing measures are so great that you cannot be in proximity to the priest, then handing him a written document is likely to create similar bad risks.

Frankly, I also do not understand all this emphasis on jumping through hoops just to go to confession. Perfect contrition and the Church’s plenary indulgence for those who regularly pray should cover any devout person until he or she can have a proper confession. Throughout history there have been many cases of people who could not confess for months at a time because they did not have access to a priest.

 

[Gorgias]

Wiretaps that can de-encrypt digital conversations?

I don’t think you’re really asking whether wiretaps still exist… are you?

Imagine a particular scenario: you come to me for confession (ok, yeah – I just ordained myself for the sake of this example…) and I allow you to use your cell phone. Unbeknownst to either of us, the FBI has a warrant to tap your cell phone, and sure enough, they’re listening in on our “confession” conversation. When you confess to running numbers, selling drugs, murdering people, and doing whatever else, the FBI now has your confession on tape. And, in that context, I will have participated in the “outing” of your confession with the authorities. (Looks like I’m not going to continue to be doing priestly ministry very long!). And worse, I could be called to testify in your trial. I might refuse to relate what you said, but they don’t need me to do so; all they have to ask is “Fr Gorgias, did you have a phone conversation HomeschoolDad on 12/18 at 4pm? Was the context of the conversation a celebration of the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation?”

And… there you go. A really, really good reason not to use cell phones for confessions.

And then there is the possibility of general absolution being administered to everyone in the nave of a church. What, then, if the Mass were being celebrated in a football stadium? What about all the people out in the tailgate area watching the Mass on Jumbotrons because they ran out of seating in the stadium? Are they “out of bounds” simply because they’re not physically within the stadium? What about the Pope’s Urbi et orbi blessing to the whole world?

Three distinct questions there, right?

• who participates in a general absolution?
• who is considered to have attended a Mass?
• who is covered by a blessing?

I think the answers are:

• those physically present for the absolution
• those physically present at the Mass and at any/all overflow areas
• no requirement for physical presence for a blessing

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Frankly, I also do not understand all this emphasis on jumping through hoops just to go to confession. Perfect contrition and the Church’s plenary indulgence for those who regularly pray should cover any devout person until he or she can have a proper confession. Throughout history there have been many cases of people who could not confess for months at a time because they did not have access to a priest.

Perfect contrition is difficult, if not impossible, for people who are “just now coming out of” a mortally sinful lifestyle, and are either taking “two steps forward and one step back”, or even “one step forward and two steps back”. Sadly, this once described me. Growing in love of God and horror at sin, being willing to die rather than commit it, is a lifelong process, and it rarely happens overnight. Sometimes imperfect, “I don’t want to go to hell” contrition is all that someone can have. I know you know that, I’m just stating it for the reader’s clarification.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I don’t think you’re really asking whether wiretaps still exist… are you?

Imagine a particular scenario: you come to me for confession (ok, yeah – I just ordained myself for the sake of this example…) and I allow you to use your cell phone. Unbeknownst to either of us, the FBI has a warrant to tap your cell phone, and sure enough, they’re listening in on our “confession” conversation. When you confess to running numbers, selling drugs, murdering people, and doing whatever else, the FBI now has your confession on tape. And, in that context, I will have participated in the “outing” of your confession with the authorities. (Looks like I’m not going to continue to be doing priestly ministry very long!). And worse, I could be called to testify in your trial. I might refuse to relate what you said, but they don’t need me to do so; all they have to ask is “Fr Gorgias, did you have a phone conversation HomeschoolDad on 12/18 at 4pm? Was the context of the conversation a celebration of the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation?”

And… there you go. A really, really good reason not to use cell phones for confessions.

Do they still exist? I don’t know. I’m not that technological.

You make a fine point, however, it would not be impossible for a private detective to plant a “bug” in a confessional, come in as a sham “penitent” and shimmy the bug back behind something so it can’t be detected, be some distance away recording everyone’s confession including the criminal’s, then come back again in a little while, feign a different voice, make another sham confession, recover the bug, and have everything on tape.

Not sure how a court would deal with such evidence. That’d be pretty depraved… but it would get the job done. (“Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap!”) I once discussed with a PI how they would go about gathering video evidence on someone, that I needed for a potential lawsuit. We ended up not going that route, but she laid out for me exactly how it would be done, if she were to do it. And no, it didn’t involve a confessional or anything church-related.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Bugging a confessional is, at least in the US, more clearly reprehensible and forbidden behavior than tapping a phone line that a person is using for all kinds of other not-so-private stuff. A confessional is meant for one thing: confession, which is supposed to be highly private and is protected by legal privilege. Cell phones, on the other hand, are used for all kinds of secular and not terribly private communications, such as ordering pizzas and the 100th spam call from someone trying to sell you an auto warranty. It makes it harder to say that the people had some expectation of a private conversation.

It’s a slippery slope once we start allowing confessions on secular technological networks. It will end badly.

 

[Gorgias]

it would not be impossible for a private detective to plant a “bug” in a confessional, come in as a sham “penitent” and shimmy the bug back behind something so it can’t be detected, be some distance away recording everyone’s confession including the criminal’s, then come back again in a little while, feign a different voice, make another sham confession, recover the bug, and have everything on tape.

Not sure how a court would deal with such evidence.

It would not be permissible as evidence, due to the way that it was collected. (IANAL, though, so at best I can say that I’m certain that recordings of persons in PA can’t be clandestine, if they’re to be introduced as evidence.)

A confessional is meant for one thing: confession, which is supposed to be highly private and is protected by legal privilege.

Well, I’m not certain that confession itself is “protected by legal privilege.” Rather, they tend to defer calling priest confessors to the stand. (Harassing a priest on the stand and attempting to hold him in contempt would be a very, very bad move. Negative PR, etc, etc. It would end up biting him in the … umm, ‘end’.)

 

[Tis_Bearself]

In the US, we have a “clergy-penitent privilege”. It also doesn’t apply only to Catholic priests, but also applies to any religious advisor acting in the capacity of providing religious advice.

It’s not just a matter of not wanting to look bad by harassing a priest on the stand. The evidence is not admissible unless the privilege is somehow waived or doesn’t apply (see below).

The penitent can choose to waive the privilege, and there may be certain legal situations in which it would not apply. But it exists. It is one of several kinds of privilege (including also attorney-client privlege, doctor-patient privilege, and spousal privilege).

 

[Gorgias]

In the US, we have a “clergy-penitent privilege”.

Yes… and no. States are divided on “mandated reporter” requirements. (Although, I would assert, they’re unwilling to call a clergy member to the carpet if the context is ‘confession’.)

The penitent can choose to waive the privilege

Sure, but at least in the Catholic context, that doesn’t permit the confessor to divulge information. The penitent can say whatever he wishes; the priest doesn’t have that freedom.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

“Mandated reporter” requirements, to the extent they exist, and which typically only apply to abuse of minors and vulnerable persons, are seen as an exception to the privilege. The privilege does not go away because there’s an exception. Other privileges I mentioned, such as doctor-patient, have exceptions as well.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Bugging a confessional is, at least in the US, more clearly reprehensible and forbidden behavior than tapping a phone line that a person is using for all kinds of other not-so-private stuff. A confessional is meant for one thing: confession, which is supposed to be highly private and is protected by legal privilege.

I just have to wonder, though, how a court would view it, if the defendant were Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy. A person accused of a capital crime with social and political implications with fear of unrest if the “right” verdict isn’t returned? (Don’t want to be more specific than that about a well-known pending case with a high media profile. Qui legit, intelligat.) I also have to wonder how it would work, if it were a psychiatrist’s or CPA’s office instead. I don’t know where courts draw that line. (Not a lawyer, wannabe, maybe, in real life, no.)

It’s a slippery slope once we start allowing confessions on secular technological networks. It will end badly.

Very well could. Best solution, let’s teach our brother and sister faithful how to elicit perfect contrition, how to mean it, and how to have the virtual intention of getting to confession ASAP if they have been so unfortunate as to fall into mortal sin.

It would not be permissible as evidence, due to the way that it was collected. (IANAL, though, so at best I can say that I’m certain that recordings of persons in PA can’t be clandestine, if they’re to be introduced as evidence.)

I think the loophole in my state, is that at least one party has to be aware. If that party is the person doing the recording, it sounds twisted, but that would cover the bases. (Again, NAL.)

Well, I’m not certain that confession itself is “protected by legal privilege.” Rather, they tend to defer calling priest confessors to the stand. (Harassing a priest on the stand and attempting to hold him in contempt would be a very, very bad move. Negative PR, etc, etc. It would end up biting him in the … umm, ‘end’.)

Up until now, the larger society has recognized confessional secrecy. However, with the welter of church-related sex abuse cases, that same larger society occasionally murmurs “how can you condone keeping things secret when a child is being molested?”. If I were uninformed by divine and Catholic faith in the sacrament, my gut instinct would be to agree with them. From a purely secular standpoint, it’s not an unreasonable expectation.

and there may be certain legal situations in which it would not apply

Child welfare being one of those?

 

[Gorgias]

Up until now, the larger society has recognized confessional secrecy. However, with the welter of church-related sex abuse cases, that same larger society occasionally murmurs “how can you condone keeping things secret when a child is being molested?”. If I were uninformed by divine and Catholic faith in the sacrament, my gut instinct would be to agree with them. From a purely secular standpoint, it’s not an unreasonable expectation.

Yep, that’s the issue. “Privacy”, but… not.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Up until now, the larger society has recognized confessional secrecy. However, with the welter of church-related sex abuse cases, that same larger society occasionally murmurs “how can you condone keeping things secret when a child is being molested?”. If I were uninformed by divine and Catholic faith in the sacrament, my gut instinct would be to agree with them. From a purely secular standpoint, it’s not an unreasonable expectation.

Yep, that’s the issue. “Privacy”, but… not.

I know. It’s tough to defend. But for the sake of the sacrament, repugnant as I find having to defend secrecy in those circumstances, I have to.

Just throwing this out there, I wonder if the Church could ever change her discipline in this matter, warning penitents that if they confess a capital crime where the welfare of a minor is involved, they will ipso facto waive their right to confidentiality. That is similar to mental health professionals having to warn patients that they will keep confidentiality under normal circumstances, but if the life or grave welfare of either the patient (e.g., threats of self-harm) or anyone else is at stake, they are a mandated reporter, and that confidentiality will have to take a back seat to informing the appropriate authorities.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I also have to wonder how it would work, if it were a psychiatrist’s or CPA’s office instead.

There’s already bodies of case law dealing with whether psychiatrists and mental health professionals can and should report threats made by their patients. This is because there have already been incidents where some mentally ill person told their shrink he was planning a murder, etc.

It is far less common to have a clergy-penitent case involving an imminent threat. People tend to confess to the priest after they did something, not go to confession beforehand and say they’re planning to do something.