CathInfo.com

Having the Penitent verbally confess, or approach for general absolution, or hand in a note proves they are real, present, and a unique person.

These are obscured by using the phone. You may be hearing a recording or synth. You don't know who or what is on the other end; one person, no person, a crowd of pagans, a trained parrot.

You would have to take special measures to have some certainty, just like the air raid scenario, although the measures would be different.

How is a group of soldiers a "unique person"?  One can be morally certain in a telephone call that you're in contact with the correct individual.  If I call my Mom's phone number and she picks up, I'm morally certain that I'm speaking to her and not a crowd of pagans or a trained parrot.

Probably the only principle that remains is that the priest has to see the individual to whom he's directing the absolution.  But then what about penitents who are behind a screen, or even a thick grille as in some cloisters (which the authors admit is valid)?  Or what of a blind priest?

So then it seems to distill that the priest has to know to whom he's giving the absolution and sense the individual through one of his senses.

But then let's take this scenario.  Some mute penitent enters the Confessional behind a thick screen and slides a note to the priest under the screen.  Really the priest can only infer the presence of the penitent due to someone handing a note through the screen.  Priest does not see or hear the penitent, nor does he touch him.  He indirectly senses his presence through the medium of a piece of paper with ink on it.

In terms of hearing an electronic representation of a voice, what if a penitent had a voice synthesizer, kindof like Stephen Hawking and is communicating through that instead of through his own vocal chords?

But in the cases of general absolution, the sins are not communicated to the priest in any fashion.  Nor in the case of a dying unconscious person.

Let's take a blind (but not deaf) priest who enters the hospital room of a dying unconscious person.  He's told by someone that there's a Catholic there dying and unconscious.  He has moral certainty that such is the case and administers absolution to the dying person.  This would certainly be valid.  It seems that it ultimately boils down to the priest's intent to direct absolution to a particular person or (in general absolution) particular persons, whether he sees them or not, senses them or not, or hears them say any sins, or even reads a note about their sins.  He need not have any knowledge of the sins communicated to him (dying person, general absolution).  He need not see or sense the penitent (blind priest in hospital room, mute penitent behind a screen).

And that suggests that absolution over the telephone would be valid.

Which one is it, then, a voice or a physical presence?  It's one or the other that's of essence.  What about when a priest grants general absolution to a large crowd?  There's no individual contact there where the priest is addressing the absolution to any specific individual.  Nor does he hear the voice of any particular individual, or any individual at all.  What about absolution given to a dying person who's unconscious?  There's nothing there but physical proximity ... no interraction whatsoever.

Ok, it's an electronic reproduction, so what?  If a penitent hands the priest a note, the priest is looking at a piece of paper with ink on it, not hearing the voice.

With a general absolution to a crow, there's neither exchange present.

I've yet to see a convincing reason why confession and absolution over a telephone can't be valid.  In fact, even the others admit that it's possibly valid, which means that the principles here are not certain but speculative.

It's another matter that the Church will have to settle, but as far as opinions...

I agree that a phone confession is possibly valid, but that there is still doubt involved.
 
The Sacrament of Penance is essentially a juridical act that sometimes has to take place in circuмstances which are less than ideal, humanly speaking of course.
 
General Absolution is real and valid, but given with the understanding that the penitent will make a good individual confession when circuмstances allow.

Absolution given to the unconscious is always conditional.

In practice when a mute writes his confession and gives it to a Priest, to ensure validity the Priest will verbally repeat what is written and seek some indication from the mute that these are his sins, that he is contrite, and has purpose of amendment.

Let's take another scenario: miners are trapped in a cave in, unreachable, but a phone connection is established. I think a Priest would be bound to hear their confessions and grant them Absolution, but, because at this point the Church has not made a definitive decision, it should be under condition.