Why can't we confess... by phone?

[DavidFilmer]

As far as I know, we must confess in person. I don’t believe it’s permissible for a priest to hear confession by phone (radio, etc).

But why is that? After all, in a “traditional” confessional, the priest cannot see or touch the penetint, but only hear. What theological difference is there between this and a telephone?

Now, I think confession by phone would be a terrible idea. But I’m curious - would it be a valid Sacrament, and if not, why?

 

[marty1818]

I would think it is because you are not phsyically present to receive the sacrament.

matthew

 

[DavidFilmer]

I would think it is because you are not phsyically present to receive the sacrament.

I would think so, too, but my question is: why does this matter? Cannot God’s Grace transcend any distance?

Obviously, this is impossible for other Sacraments. You cannot receive Communion (which requires consecrated Bread or Wine) by telephone. Or Baptsim (which requires the application of water). Or Confirmation (which requires the laying of hands). But Confession requires no physical contact or exchange of physical matter. So why can’t it be done by phone?

 

[Milliardo]

The Sacraments are to administered perosnally and physically, not through any other means. That is why as well online ordinations are not honoured by the Church nor endorsed by it. You will notice that all Sacraments are done with the person physically present.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

DavidFilmer:

As far as I know, we must confess in person. I don’t believe it’s permissible for a priest to hear confession by phone (radio, etc).

But why is that? After all, in a “traditional” confessional, the priest cannot see or touch the penetint, but only hear. What theological difference is there between this and a telephone?

Now, I think confession by phone would be a terrible idea. But I’m curious - would it be a valid Sacrament, and if not, why?

There are a few questions that come to mind here.
First of all I dont know why someone would want to confess on the radio, thats the last thing someone who wanted privacy would do.

Also know when someone is in jail and a visitor wants to talk to them they have to be behind a glass wall and talk on the phone to the criminal. If that was the only way the criminal could talk then I bet that would be valid.

As far as over the phone long distance, that could bring up lots of problems and scandals. Remember the reformation, just think of the words “$2.99 per minute” in every newspaper headline.

thats all I can think of right now.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Milliardo:

…That is why as well online ordinations are not honoured by the Church nor endorsed by it.

But, of course, Ordination REQUIRES physical contact. Confession does NOT. So, WHY is physical presence required for THIS PARTICULAR Sacrament? What is the THEOLOGICAL basis, therefore, for saying we cannot recieve absolution by phone or radio (or, maybe, even by written letters exchanged back-and-forth)?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Catholic Dude:

First of all I dont know why someone would want to confess on the radio, thats the last thing someone who wanted privacy would do.

In the early Church, all Confessions were made in public (folks stood up in the middle of the Assembly and confessed their sins - there was no Seal). I believe this form would still be valid and acceptable (though discouraged) today, provided the penetints agreed (the penetint is free to relinquish his/her right to the Seal and discuss his/her Confession at will). At least, over the radio, nobody can be sure who is talking.

Also know when someone is in jail and a visitor wants to talk to them they have to be behind a glass wall and talk on the phone to the criminal. If that was the only way the criminal could talk then I bet that would be valid.

This is true, and I remember a case a few years ago in nearby Eugene, OR, where an accused murderer spoke to a priest in this fashion, and (unknown to the priest) all such conversations are recorded. Prosecuetors (suspecing a Confession) wanted access to those tapes, but a judge (eventually) ordered them destroyed. But, of course, the prisoner was only a few feet from the priest and in visual contact - but still, a phone (really, an intercom) was used. Is this valid for confession? If so, why not an ordinary public phone? Just wondering…

As far as over the phone long distance, that could bring up lots of problems and scandals.

Well, maybe (though telecommunication security has improved greatly in recent years). But the possibliity (or even the actuality) of scandal does not invalidate a Sacrament.

My question is not,* “Is this a good idea” - because it’s NOT (for many reasons). My question is: “Is this Sacramentally valid, and if not, WHY?”
*

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Face to face, or hidden from each other is already an option.

Is there a specific physical distance they need to be in order to be considered “personal?”

Would my dad have needed to remove his hearing aid because it introduced an electronic transmission medium between the priest’s voice and his ear?

[edit] does the barrier used for a private confession have to transmit air, or just sound?

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Once I got locked in a mental ward and little while later called the home of a retired priest who knew me well and confessed to him that I had promised my wife I would be home for dinner, and I was being physically prevented from honoring my promise to her. He told me that I would have to absolve myself from that promise. I had never heard of such a thing, but he assured me it was ok and suddenly a great peace came over me.

Alan

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

DavidFilmer:

As far as I know, we must confess in person. I don’t believe it’s permissible for a priest to hear confession by phone (radio, etc).

But why is that? After all, in a “traditional” confessional, the priest cannot see or touch the penetint, but only hear. What theological difference is there between this and a telephone?

Now, I think confession by phone would be a terrible idea. But I’m curious - would it be a valid Sacrament, and if not, why?

WE may be searching for an answer that does not exist. It may very well be possible to confess over the phone. However it is not valid because the discipline of the Sacraments says it’s not.

 

[Digitonomy]

Br. Rich SFO:

WE may be searching for an answer that does not exist. It may very well be possible to confess over the phone. However it is not valid because the discipline of the Sacraments says it’s not.

Wouldn’t that simply make it illicit, rather than invalid?

 

[Ahimsa]

What about confession via video-phone, or (sci-fi-esque) holodeck transporter?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

DavidFilmer:

In the early Church, all Confessions were made in public (folks stood up in the middle of the Assembly and confessed their sins - there was no Seal). I believe this form would still be valid and acceptable (though discouraged) today, provided the penetints agreed (the penetint is free to relinquish his/her right to the Seal and discuss his/her Confession at will). At least, over the radio, nobody can be sure who is talking.This is true, and I remember a case a few years ago in nearby Eugene, OR, where an accused murderer spoke to a priest in this fashion, and (unknown to the priest) all such conversations are recorded. Prosecuetors (suspecing a Confession) wanted access to those tapes, but a judge (eventually) ordered them destroyed. But, of course, the prisoner was only a few feet from the priest and in visual contact - but still, a phone (really, an intercom) was used. Is this valid for confession? If so, why not an ordinary public phone? Just wondering…Well, maybe (though telecommunication security has improved greatly in recent years). But the possibliity (or even the actuality) of scandal does not invalidate a Sacrament.

My question is not,* “Is this a good idea” - because it’s NOT (for many reasons). My question is: “Is this Sacramentally valid,* and if not, WHY?”

I asked a priest this same question once. He stated that a previous Pope had banned all forms of “remote confession,” although I’m not exactly sure where that is.

 

[teajay]

But Vicar General of the Melbourne Archdiocese Monsignor Les Tomlinson said the church regards radio confessions as inappropriate because they break the secrecy seal of the confessional. He said there could be severe repercussions for a priest who broke the seal, including defrocking or excommunication.

“The penitent may choose to reveal the contents of their confession, but the priest can never break the seal of the confessional, and that includes broadcasting it on radio,” Monsignor Tomlinson said.

Monsignor Tomlinson said the callers’ sins would not have been forgiven because the official words of absolution were not used, and was concerned the callers may have believed they had received real absolution.

The church has long resisted calls for phone confessions, insisting the rite be kept personal. Monsignor Tomlinson said radio confessions could also embarrass a third party who had not consented to being identified.

Priest hears ‘confession’ by radio

If I remember correctly, the priest later said that it was just a mock confession and that he never claimed for it to be valid.

 

[DavidFilmer]

GROAN.

I shouldn’t have mentioned radio. Now the thread is getting way off on a tangent regarding the security of the Seal. The Seal is NOT the issue here (we may make our Confession in the middle of a room full of people if WE willingly wish to do so - as the Early Christians did. The Seal is ours to forsake if we wish).

OK, forget radio. I really want to re-foucs this thread. Let me rephrase the question, please.

When the President of the United States wants to call the Secretary of State at home to discuss a top secret matter, he uses a special telephone called an STE. This is a super-secret encrypted telephone channel.

Suppose a priest and I had an STE. Could I call him up, go secure, and confess? The Seal is absolutely guaranteed.

 

[viktor_aleksndr]

DavidFilmer:

As far as I know, we must confess in person. I don’t believe it’s permissible for a priest to hear confession by phone (radio, etc).

But why is that? After all, in a “traditional” confessional, the priest cannot see or touch the penetint, but only hear. What theological difference is there between this and a telephone?

Now, I think confession by phone would be a terrible idea. But I’m curious - would it be a valid Sacrament, and if not, why?

I think it is more technical. Wire tapping is one! Do you want someone beside the priest and GOD listen to your sins?

I think confession needs the presence of the individual.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

DavidFilmer:

GROAN.

I shouldn’t have mentioned radio. Now the thread is getting way off on a tangent regarding the security of the Seal. The Seal is NOT the issue here (we may make our Confession in the middle of a room full of people if WE willingly wish to do so - as the Early Christians did. The Seal is ours to forsake if we wish).

OK, forget radio. I really want to re-foucs this thread. Let me rephrase the question, please.

When the President of the United States wants to call the Secretary of State at home to discuss a top secret matter, he uses a special telephone called an STE. This is a super-secret encrypted telephone channel.

Suppose a priest and I had an STE. Could I call him up, go secure, and confess? The Seal is absolutely guaranteed.

David, you are correct about the seal. Our Eastern Catholic & Orthodox brothers still confess their that way to this day.

 

[DavidFilmer]

viktor aleksndr:

I think it is more technical. Wire tapping is one! Do you want someone beside the priest and GOD listen to your sins? I think confession needs the presence of the individual.

Oh, no - we’re still talking about the Seal. You DO NOT need the Seal to have a valid confession. The Confessional can be bugged, or the penetint can be overheard if he speaks too loudly. This does NOT invalidate the Sacrament - Absolution is valid in either case. My question has NOTHING to do with the Seal (which is NOT necessary for a valid Confession). The question is, is: WHY is confession by phone (even a super-secret encrypted channel such as an STE, which would be gibberish even if tapped) NOT valid?

 

[DavidFilmer]

AlanFromWichita:

Face to face, or hidden from each other is already an option.

Is there a specific physical distance they need to be in order to be considered “personal?”

Would my dad have needed to remove his hearing aid because it introduced an electronic transmission medium between the priest’s voice and his ear?

Does the barrier used for a private confession have to transmit air, or just sound?

Alan

These are good, insightful, and relevant questions. Could we shout our confession to a priest on the other side of a wide canyon? (regardless of the Seal, which is NOT necessary). It would be cumbersome, but would it be valid?

What is the *theological *difference between someone who hears the priest (ony a few feet away) with an electronic hearing aid, as opposed to someone who hears the priest (many miles away) by an electronic telephone? (or, considering that the priest might only hear US by virute of the hearing aid?) Suppose both priest and penetint needed hearing aids (electronic supplimentation). What is the *theological *difference between this situation and a telephone?

Or, what is the *theological *difference between someone who confesses behind a mesh screen, or a prisoner who confesses (by a telephone-type intercomm) behind a thick and soundproof glass partition? If a prisoner may confess by telephone-style intercomm devices to a priest only a few feet away (as is commonly done), what is the *theological *basis for saying we can’t confess by similar devices with a priest many miles away?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

DavidFilmer:

Or, what is the *theological *difference between someone who confesses behind a mesh screen, or a prisoner who confesses (by a telephone-type intercomm) behind a thick and soundproof glass partition? If a prisoner may confess by telephone-style intercomm devices to a priest only a few feet away (as is commonly done), what is the *theological *basis for saying we can’t confess by similar devices with a priest many miles away?

No difference, I say. If there is a specific distance limit, I’d be interested in learning what theological basis there would be to define that limit. There is no touching involved.

Why do people automatically say things are bad just because they’ve never heard of them being done before? I guess people just naturally strike against the unknown?

Alan