Phones in Confessional

  • Thread starter Thread starter sealabeag
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks everyone for the replies. I understand the issue of phones recording is controversial, but I think I’ve gotten my answer regarding the question at hand, please correct me if I’m wrong:
The penitent is not breaking the seal because he cannot break the seal as only the priest is bound by that however intentionally recording it would probably be a sin of some other sort. The priest is not breaking the seal since he is not consciously aware that his phone is recording, even if it were doing so.

Out of interest, if evidence were presented (not here, I mean in general, to society), that let’s say for example the government, were recording through your phone, would there be a moral obligation on the church to address that re the seal of confession?
 
Last edited:
Stephen_says said:
The myth that apps on your phone are listening to you is pretty widespread, but there’s no compelling proof that it’s happening
Click to expand...
Tis_Bearself said:
It’s not a “fact”. My phone is not magically recording my conversations somehow when the recording function is off, I’m not making a call, and I don’t have any voice-activated apps.
If one is really worried about this, the phone has an “off” button.
Click to expand...
Now that I’ve gotten my answer just felt like saying - tell that to Edward Snowden. 😋
 
You should want to help eavesdropping tech moguls not sin by not giving them occasion to, but it seems unrealistic that they would know that they are getting the data from a confession.
 
Last edited:
sealabeag said:
Given this fact, as Catholics, would bringing our smartphones into the confessional not, on some level at least, be to break the seal of confession?
Click to expand...
Well, maybe at some point the supreme court will decide that if you brought a cell phone there, then you don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and so those whispers in the presence of Siri can be subpoenaed. (you know, for use in court to pressure a priest, or to convict you)
 
Last edited:
Edward Snowden to me is an entitled arrogant untrustworthy person who broke the rules at a job he got through the buddy system.
I pay absolutely no attention to what he says. I have a very low opinion of him.
 
sealabeag said:
Out of interest, if evidence were presented (not here, I mean in general, to society), that let’s say for example the government, were recording through your phone, would there be a moral obligation on the church to address that re the seal of confession?
Click to expand...
I assume so, yes. Presumably then the church would just require that phones be switched off completely or left outside before entering the confessional.
 
A dear friend of mine is blind and she assiduously prepares for confession by pre-recording audio memos. In the confessional, she discreetly plays the memos - via a bluetooth earpiece - to refresh her memory.

She explained to me that smart phones are very helpful seeing aids: text-to-speech, audio note taking, Siri/Google Assistant, etc. Braille, which has been in decline for a few decades, has essentially been replaced by smart phones amongst younger blind persons in developed Western countries.
 
I don’t care if he is entitled, arrogant, and any range of ad hominems. He blew the whistle on a government spying on it’s citizens, and for that I respect him.
 
That’s a nice idea. I hope your parish has a different policy for phones used as medical devices.
 
It’s not a good idea to use smart phones in the confessional. I think it’s well known today that the government can track you through your cell phone use, and your data, web searches, internet history and yes, conversations, are collected and recorded. In other words, you ARE being spied on when you use a smart phone.

It would be wiser to write down your sins on a sheet of paper, read them off in the box, then shred it after you’ve left the church.

And hope the priest isn’t using a smart phone on his side of the screen.
 
I don’t like the idea of microphones in the confessional, including those embedded in cell phones. I would worry more about the priest’s phone than the penitent’s. I would rather not have my sins permaently stored in the cloud.

For now, this worry may not be reasonable, but I recall the news item recently wherein Alexa recorded private conversations from one household (without being summoned) and transmitted them to some other person on the contact list.
 
JimG said:
I don’t like the idea of microphones in the confessional, including those embedded in cell phones. I would worry more about the priest’s phone than the penitent’s. I would rather not have my sins permaently stored in the cloud.

For now, this worry may not be reasonable, but I recall the news item recently wherein Alexa recorded private conversations from one household (without being summoned) and transmitted them to some other person on the contact list.
Click to expand...
Which is one obvious reason we won’t have Alexa in our home – anywhere.
 
kapp19 said:
I am aware of no authority that prohibits the penitent from recording a confession, though it’s weird and can be rude and imprudent, maybe civilly illegal some places too.
Click to expand...
Recording is forbidden by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
anyone who by means of any technical device makes a recording of what the priest or the penitent says in a Sacramental Confession (either real or simulated) by oneself or by another person, or who divulges it through the means of social communication, incurs excommunication latae sententiae .
Click to expand...
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...th_doc_19880923_scomunica-confessioni_en.html
 
Bernoulli said:
anyone who by means of any technical device makes a recording of what the priest or the penitent says in a Sacramental Confession (either real or simulated) by oneself or by another person, or who divulges it through the means of social communication, incurs excommunication latae sententiae .
Click to expand...
Official Church teachings are always the best answers! Thanks!
 
sealabeag said:
Out of interest, if evidence were presented (not here, I mean in general, to society), that let’s say for example the government, were recording through your phone, would there be a moral obligation on the church to address that re the seal of confession?
Click to expand...
The government (at least in the US) is not allowed to use such information. It would be a violation of the Constitution. They have no right to what is said between a priest and penitent in the confessional because that is protected by the First Amendment. Every time the government has tried to get priests to testify what they heard in confession has failed. This would be no different nor less grievous a violation.
 
Hmmm. I’m now wondering if it would be better to go to confession with a really old priest who is less likely to have a smartphone, or a younger priest who can properly work his smartphone…
 
sealabeag said:
Many priests use their phone in the confessional, for prayers or whatever they may be doing. So how does that affect it?
Click to expand...
I say it does not.
sealabeag said:
Related question: If the seal of confession is only binding on the priest, then I can record my confession and play it to a friend later, and not have sinned?
Click to expand...
That would be horribly unwise, but… you may have committed an illegal act (i.e., recording the speech of the priest without his permission), so yes, it was sinful!
JanR said:
I think it’s well known today that the government can track you through your cell phone use, and your data, web searches, internet history and yes, conversations, are collected and recorded. In other words, you ARE being spied on when you use a smart phone.
Click to expand...
Hang on, though. The “tracking” is based on the ‘pings’ that your cell phone sends to cell towers. It’s a location track, not a “recording your data” track.

Web searches and history? Yep… but that’s based on the “trail of crumbs” that your searches leave. They can subpoena them just as they can subpoena any other material evidence.

“Conversations collected and recorded”? Only with a warrant.

So… “spied on”? Hardly. They’re out there… but they aren’t “telescreens” in the Orwellian ‘1984’ sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top