Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Ladislaus on November 03, 2023, 02:21:09 PM
-
So, I was listening to an audio presentation on this thread ...
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/act-of-perfect-contrition-72478
and the topic came up very briefly.
Here's a link to the audio (which is excellent, BTW):
https://soundcloud.com/novusordowatch/the-spiritual-life-11
I'm struggling to understand why Confession couldn't be valid over the phone. Most of what I've found online looks like Conciliar gobbledygook, the typical need for community and for people to be "present" ... the same types of principles that have led some to conclude that Mass isn't Mass unless there's someone else beside the priest there.
So, the priest does not have to be in physical contact with the penitent or touch the penitent when giving absolution. Could the penitent by 5 feet away, 10 feet, 50 feet? Some book arbitrarily threw out "20 paces". So it's valid at 20, but invalid at 21? That doesn't sound like a theological principles.
Does a penitent have to speak his sins to the priest? Not necessarily. If you have a mute person, it's perfectly acceptable for the individual to hand the priest a note with the sins written out. Or, even pre-Vatican II, in danger of death or in the case of some other necessity (impending disaster or war), the priest could even give a general absolution. While there would still be a necessity of precept to eventually confess those sins, the absolution would still be valid at that time and not only later when the penitent had the chance to confess.
There's no obligation for the penitent to see the priest giving the absolution, or the priest to see the penitent, as often the priest is separate by a screen.
So I'm struggling to find a theological principle that would invalidate Confession over the phone. If one communicates one's sins to the priest (or in necessity at least intends to do so), whether by a note or by speaking ... why does it matter if it's over a phone line or a cell phone? Those are just variations on communication, and the essence seems to be that the priest somehow obtains knowledge of the sins.
It's not necessary for the penitent to hear or see the priest giving the absolution (a deaf or blind person for instance). It's not necessary for the priest and penitent to be in physical contact (usually they are not).
Why does some relatively arbitrary distance matter? Penitent could be 5 or 10 feet away behind a screen when absolution is given and also be deaf and blind, having handed the priest a note, and not seeing or hearing or speaking the sins. Who made up this "20 paces" criterion? 21 would invalidate the Confession? Or 30? Or 45.5?
There's no distance that actually matters for the efficacy of God's grace.
Any thoughts?
As far as I can tell, Confession would be valid over a phone ... since I can see no reason that it would not be.
-
The sacraments generally work in a simulation of physical causality. You pour the water on the head, you put the holy oil on the person, etc.
There is no physical proximity between people talking on the phone. They aren't even hearing each other's voices. They are hearing a machine replicate the sound of the other person's voice. If a priest could absolve someone over the phone, he could absolve anyone in any part of the world. He could mail someone a letter giving him absolution.
-
The sacraments generally work in a simulation of physical causality. You pour the water on the head, you put the holy oil on the person, etc.
Yeah, some of the Sacraments, depending on the matter required. Confession isn't in that category. Matter are the sins, the contrition, the confession, and the satisfaction. There's no physical contact required to administer this Sacrament. What's the need for proximity? One can only come up with an arbitrary number of how much proximity is required and I've seen no theological explanation of the need for proximity. I don't ever intend to confess over the phone ... unless possibly in danger of death when I had no other option (since it's considered doubtful by common theological consensus), but I'm just attempting to get a deeper understanding of the Sacrament by exploring this topic.
-
They aren't even hearing each other's voices.
Sure, but why is this required? I've brought up the example of the deaf mute, who could hand the priest a note and would not hear the absolution. Very often the priest says the absolution in low voice and the penitent doesn't hear it. Also, a priest can absolve an unconscious dying individual, or can (in emergencies) perform a general absolution over a crowd (and those in the crow farther away would not hear his voice).
If it is required to "hear" one another's voices, why? And how could a deaf mute ever have valid Confession and Absolution? How can a dying man who's unconscious be validly absolved? Based on those two examples, these could be required only by precept and cannot be of essence for the validity of the Sacrament.
What's left if you remove this is "proxmity", and I'd like to explore why "proxmity" matters. I get it for Sacraments where physical contact is necessary. You can't poor water on someone who's a mile away. Although, even there, I've read some thing where in the early Church, a female assistant (sometimes called a deaconess) would help female be immersed for baptism, while the bishops stood behind a screen and spoke the form of the Sacrament.
-
Here's a more detailed explanation from Halligan, The Administration of the Sacraments. He doesn't specifically mention the telephone, but he explains the ideas here.
-
Oh wait, sorry, it's right here. He explains what's wrong with telephonic absolution.
-
Here's a more detailed explanation from Halligan, The Administration of the Sacraments. He doesn't specifically mention the telephone, but he explains the ideas here.
Thanks. Unfortunately, he just states the ideas ... and doesn't really explain them. There's no deeper theological explanation for why there must be physical presence. Just says that there must be. That's what I'm looking for, a theological explanation for the necessity of presence.
-
There is some merit to the ‘physically present’ argument. Then again, we can’t totally go by history/tradition because the phone is a modern invention with no precedent.
A poor analogy would be joining a prayer confraternity. Used to be, you had to join in person in your diocese…and ONLY IF your diocese was willing to take part. Then you were allowed to mail a letter to another diocese and join, if your diocese didn’t have approval. Now, you can simply sign up on a website and join the one in Rome.
Or how about the indulgences associated with pilgrimages or visiting certain churches in rome? There are all kinds of allowances for those who can’t be “physically present” to say certain prayers and do some extra duties, to gain indulgences.
Confession by phone…maybe? In an emergency only?
-
Thanks. Unfortunately, he just states the ideas ... and doesn't really explain them. There's no deeper theological explanation for why there must be physical presence. Just says that there must be. That's what I'm looking for, a theological explanation for the necessity of presence.
.
In the first page I posted, he says that the Church condemned the notion that absolution can be given to one who is absent. Here is the footnote to that statement. It is footnote 53. Maybe the condemnation will explain more.
-
Thanks, Yeti, for the research.
-
I don't see why confessions couldn't be done by video chat. Perhaps there is a slight risk of hacking. I'm going to ask a priest.
-
This may shed some light on the matter. It was a question considered during WWII, if a parish priest could given a general absolution to the Catholics of a town whilst in their homes during an air raid.
Questions and Answers: The Sacraments (Canon E. J. Mahoney D.D.):
Is a general absolution valid if given by a priest in the presbytery to all the Catholics of a town in their homes, or wherever they may be, at the beginning of an air raid?
(i) A general absolution to be valid must conform to the requirements of this sacrament iure divino, which are all contained within the teaching of the Church in the Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, can. 9, that priestly absolution is a judicial act. The essentials of this act, as well as the conditions for the valid reception of any sacrament, are certainly observed when a general absolution is given to a regiment or to a church full of people: (a) the penitents have the requisite intention and manifest it externally by reciting the act of contrition; (b) the judicial sentence is pronounced by the priest in the words of absolution, after reminding the people, as ordered by the Holy See, that the absolution is of no avail unless they are rightly disposed, and that an integral confession of their sins must be made on a future occasion; (c) the recipients are present at this judgement.
(ii) In the circuмstances of the above question, the faithful could be previously instructed to form an intention and make an act of contrition immediately the sirens sound. At the same moment the priest could pronounce the words of absolution, having previously instructed the people on the conditions attached to its reception, thus securing some degree of simultaneity between the matter and form of the sacrament.
If, in addition, it could be said that the recipients are, in some probable sense of the word, present at the priestly absolution, it would follow that the act is probably valid and therefore permissible at least conditionally. It is under this aspect of the matter that many disputed questions have been, and still are, discussed: absolution by letter is invalid; by telephone extremely doubtful; pronounced over one who has precipitately left the confessional, it will depend on the distance. Whether examined on theological principles or subjected to a tiresome casuistical method, a correct solution of all these questions turns on establishing the presence or absence of the penitent at the moment of absolution.
If it were merely a matter of ecclesiastical law, as in the absolution of censures and other penalties, the judgement could validly be given in a variety of ways: by letter, messenger, telephone, telegraph or wireless. Nor is there anything in the nature of a judicial sentence which necessarily requires the presence of the penitent at the moment of absolution. This is require in the sacramental absolution of sin because, from the teaching of the Church, Christ has willed that the judgement shall be given in words and words alone: "Docet... sacramenti poenitentiae formam, in qua praecipue ipsius vis sita est, in illis ministri verbis positam esse: Ego te absolvo, etc." "Forma huius sacramenti sunt verba absolutionis."
This verbal form, in which the penitent is mentioned by the personal pronoun, necessarily implies that he is present when it is uttered, and the theologians, therefore, restrict their discussions to determining the outside limit of distance within which "presence" is verified. They write, indeed, of "moral" presence, but we agree with Chrétien, that "physical" presence would better express their meaning; a person would be morally present in his deputy or proxy, which is clearly insufficient. It may be held with St. Alphonsus, that penitents are present if they can be seen priest, but it accords better with the vocal form if we require the voice of the priest to be heard. Thus a well-established probabilist like Noldin advises that, in giving general absolution to an army, the men should be divided and absolved in separate groups if some are too far distant to hear the priest's voice.
We cannot find any writer who expressly deals with the above question, and we are not aware of any arguments proving that these scattered penitents may be considered present. It could be maintained, we suppose, that they are present as a body of parishioners. But in country districts the parishioners might be spread over a vast territory, and if these can be absolved, why not the whole diocese or the whole nation? Since we can find nothing to justify the view that penitents in these circuмstances may validly be absolved, nor even a probability in its favour, it is our opinion that absolution may not lawfully be given even conditionally.
Cf. writers De Poenitentia: de modo proferendi absolutionem, e.g. Cappello, II, §92; Marc- Gestermann, II, §1663.
-
Here's a more detailed explanation from Halligan, The Administration of the Sacraments. He doesn't specifically mention the telephone, but he explains the ideas here.
Mahoney rejects the “at least morally present” since he says, “They write, indeed, of "moral" presence, but we agree with Chrétien, that "physical" presence would better express their meaning; a person would be morally present in his deputy or proxy, which is clearly insufficient.
-
We cannot find any writer who expressly deals with the above question, and we are not aware of any arguments proving that these scattered penitents may be considered present. It could be maintained, we suppose, that they are present as a body of parishioners. But in country districts the parishioners might be spread over a vast territory, and if these can be absolved, why not the whole diocese or the whole nation? Since we can find nothing to justify the view that penitents in these circuмstances may validly be absolved, nor even a probability in its favour, it is our opinion that absolution may not lawfully be given even conditionally.
It helps some but doesn't really clear it up. This matter seems like it remains fairly disputed. While it's stated that absolution by telephone is "highly doubtful", doubtful does not mean certainly invalid, making it unclear what the exact principles involved are. If the principles were completely clear, it would just be straight invalid.
It does try to make some argument from the fact that a juridical act require the presence of the individual. But does it? People can be tried in absentia. People are excommunicated without being present, etc. I find this unconvincing.
As he admits, the writers speak of a "moral presence" but then he says that this moral presence is BEST reflected by a physical presence, and here he write that it "could e maintained, we supposed that they are present [aka morally] as a body of parishioners".
So the notion of presence seems to have some dispute about it. I'm not sure how the presence of communicating with a priest over the phone wouldn't be considered at least a moral presence. If I pick up the phone and I'm talking to my Mom, even though we're physically separated, there's certainly a moral presence there.
-
It may be held with St. Alphonsus, that penitents are present if they can be seen priest, but it accords better with the vocal form if we require the voice of the priest to be heard. Thus a well-established probabilist like Noldin advises that, in giving general absolution to an army, the men should be divided and absolved in separate groups if some are too far distant to hear the priest's voice.
Ok, then what about a deaf person? Can't hear the priest's voice, so can't be absolved?
-
Wouldn't there be a similar question for the Sacrament of Marriage? Why can't couples be married over the phone? Or on a Zoom session? etc, etc
I think this is a slippery slope.
-
Wouldn't there be a similar question for the Sacrament of Marriage? Why can't couples be married over the phone? Or on a Zoom session? etc, etc
I think this is a slippery slope.
Why can't they? Marriage is all about intent. Certainly they can be married without a priest as a witness under some circuмstances.
-
Ok, then what about a deaf person? Can't hear the priest's voice, so can't be absolved?
.
No, the difference has to do with being in someone's proximity or otherwise. The soldiers who are too far away to hear the absolution are not morally present to the priest. That's why they can't receive absolution from him. Whereas a deaf person in close proximity to someone is still in close proximity even though he can't hear him.
-
Interesting question!
Wouldn't doubt arise about validity because the Sacraments come from our Lord and must use matter that He used when on earth? For example:
Baptism must be done with what He would recognize as water, not coca cola.
Confirmation must use olive oil not mobil 5W-30.
Wine not rum used at Mass.
So to confess using a telephone for example, it is not really the voice of the penitent but an electronic reproduction that the Priest hears. In cases where the penitent cannot speak the Priest can physically receive a written note or ask the penitent for some gesture; nod, squeeze his hand, etc.
The closest that I can recall a pre VII Pope addressing electronic means is Pius XII
Miranda Prorsus (https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_08091957_miranda-prorsus.html) September 8, 1957
where he states
It is obvious, of course, - as We declared a few years ago [size=-1]52[/size] (https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_08091957_miranda-prorsus.html#Nota 52)[/iurl] - that to be present at Mass portrayed by Television is not the same as being actually present at the Divine Sacrifice, as is of obligation on holy days.
-
I don't see why confessions couldn't be done by video chat. Perhaps there is a slight risk of hacking. I'm going to ask a priest.
There is much less of a risk, than the risk that someone outside the confessional (perhaps someone with very acute hearing) could hear one's confession.
Here's what Jone's Moral Theology has to say about the matter of confession by phone:
(https://i.imgur.com/kXLu0eZ.png)
-
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.
-
It seems to me that Sacraments & blessings always have to happen in one physical “space”, the area of which is determined by context and not by the actual size/distance and barriers.
For example, it wouldn't make a lot of sense for a priest to give a blessing to a person in a neighbouring house from his presbytery just 15 metres away, even if the person is receptive (assuming there are no preventions for the priest to go there - it's not a high-security prison, locked-down elderly home etc.) The context is they are in two separate houses, two separate spaces. However, a priest or a bishop can obviously bless all 3000 Mass attendees at once at a congress, even if some of them are physically 150 metres away. They are all in the same space.
If your church is small and you have to stand outside to assist at Mass, you'd obviously fulfill your Sunday obligations and receive the graces of the Mass, even though you're not technically in the church.
I remember a similar topic came up during one of Fr. (now Bp.) Morgan's online catechisms. If I remember correctly, he said that during lockdowns, a good idea to go around the rules might be to have Confessions at a grocery store parking lot, with the confessor sits in his car, and the penitent sits in his/her own and parks next to or near the priest, confessing over the phone to him. This way, they'd be in the same space and aware of each other, and being prevented to speak face-to-face, the phone serves as a communication aid.
The Church allows those with disabilities and to use hearing aids, writing etc in Penance, and priests who don't understand the language of his penitents use a sheet where penitents tick their sins and write down a number.
So I don't think the issue is the phone itself, but whether or not the priest and the penitent are within the same “space” more or less, as much as they are not prevented to be.
-
The problem has to do with the mediation of a non-human-bodily element in the process. The Sacrament of Penance, like all the Sacraments are "sensible" in a non-intermediated way. St. Thomas explains that below:
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.III.Q60.A4
St. Thomas distinguishes between proximate and remote "matter" of the Sacrament of Penance. The proximate matter is the speaking of words (this is a sensible bodily action). Those spoken words, as sound vibrations coming from the vocal cords, must be heard directly by the ears of the priest. The remote matter is the mortal sin itself. Both the proximate and remote parts of "the matter" must be there for the Sacrament to be valid.
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.III.Q84.A2
With a telephone, an intermediate, artificial (non-human-sense) device intercepts the vocal cord vibrations and translates them into an electrical signal and then to another artificial device which reveals it (in some way) to the priest sensibly.
It would be like doing a baptism by having a priest push a button that uses a solenoid to release a bucket of water onto the head of the "baptised" while that priest is saying the words of the form. That would be similarly invalid. The priest's hands must be directly involved in pouring the water onto the baptised person.
-
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.III.Q60.A4
St. Thomas distinguishes between proximate and remote "matter" of the Sacrament of Penance. The proximate matter is the speaking of words (this is a sensible bodily action). Those spoken words, as sound vibrations coming from the vocal cords, must be heard directly by the ears of the priest. The remote matter is the mortal sin itself. Both the proximate and remote parts of "the matter" must be there for the Sacrament to be valid.
So a mute person cannot validly be absolved of sin? What about cases of general absolution where a large group of troops could receive it without having individually confessed their sins, and certainly not to be heard by the ears of the priest. What if the priest is deaf, say, lost his hearing? He can't validly absolve anymore? This criterion fails all these actual examples that are held to be valid by the Church.
Mute person could hand the priest a note. Penitent could hand a deaf priest a note. Priests validly absolve a large group of individuals, such as troops, without having heard them (especially those in the back) vocalize any sins.
-
It seems to me that Sacraments & blessings always have to happen in one physical “space”, the area of which is determined by context and not by the actual size/distance and barriers.
...
So I don't think the issue is the phone itself, but whether or not the priest and the penitent are within the same “space” more or less, as much as they are not prevented to be.
Yeah, that's what various sources "say". But I'm looking deeper. Why? And, if this principle were that certain, telephone Confessions would not simply be "highly doubtful" but certainly invalid. Various theologians says that there has to be a "moral" presence? If you're talking on the phone with someone, aren't you at least morally present? When I'm on the phone with, say, my Mom, I feel morally present to her and vice versa.
-
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.
-
So to confess using a telephone for example, it is not really the voice of the penitent but an electronic reproduction that the Priest hears. In cases where the penitent cannot speak the Priest can physically receive a written note or ask the penitent for some gesture; nod, squeeze his hand, etc.
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.
-
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.
-
In terms of the presence, since that's what seems to remain, physical proximity, why is 20 paces valid, but 21 invalid? Would couldn't 15 paces be invalid? What of a large crowd where the people in the back might be hundreds of feet away? In that case, it's held that they're morally present. OK, but then can't an individual 25, 30, 50 paces away be morally present?
-
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.
-
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.
Agreed that there's doubt. If any significant number of theologians hold that it's doubtful, then we must consider it doubtful. I lean toward them being valid because I haven't yet found a clear-cut principle to definitively rule it out.
So, one practical application of this is that in danger of death, where someone has no other recourse, one might attempt to call a priest and ask him to conditionally absolve over the phone. One may have recourse to doubtful Sacraments in danger of death.
Obviously this should not become some kind of ordinary way to confess and receive absolution, but it may be of use in extreme cases. I'm also thinking along the lines of a possible new lockdown some day where the churches are shut down even harder than they were last time with COVID.
-
Agreed that there's doubt. If any significant number of theologians hold that it's doubtful, then we must consider it doubtful. I lean toward them being valid because I haven't yet found a clear-cut principle to definitively rule it out.
So, one practical application of this is that in danger of death, where someone has no other recourse, one might attempt to call a priest and ask him to conditionally absolve over the phone. One may have recourse to doubtful Sacraments in danger of death.
Obviously this should not become some kind of ordinary way to confess and receive absolution, but it may be of use in extreme cases. I'm also thinking along the lines of a possible new lockdown some day where the churches are shut down even harder than they were last time with COVID.
Sorry Lad that I didn’t respond sooner, I was away. Below is a case from the Casuist, I believe it answers your question. Especially see what I highlighted in red.
-
Agreed that there's doubt. If any significant number of theologians hold that it's doubtful, then we must consider it doubtful. I lean toward them being valid because I haven't yet found a clear-cut principle to definitively rule it out.
So, one practical application of this is that in danger of death, where someone has no other recourse, one might attempt to call a priest and ask him to conditionally absolve over the phone. One may have recourse to doubtful Sacraments in danger of death.
Obviously this should not become some kind of ordinary way to confess and receive absolution, but it may be of use in extreme cases. I'm also thinking along the lines of a possible new lockdown some day where the churches are shut down even harder than they were last time with COVID.
Agreed. If someone is dying, and the only way to administer absolution is over the phone, better that, than nothing at all. The worst thing that can happen, is that it would be invalid. Epikeia would certainly kick in here.
-
Agreed. If someone is dying, and the only way to administer absolution is over the phone, better that, than nothing at all. The worst thing that can happen, is that it would be invalid. Epikeia would certainly kick in here.
The priest could also spend time on instructing/helping the penitent make an act of perfect contrition.
-
The priest could also spend time on instructing/helping the penitent make an act of perfect contrition.
Yeah, both could be done, instruction on perfect contrition and a conditional absolution if there's a danger of death scenario.
In the practical order, it must be considered doubtful, until the Church rules on it, since most theologians hold it to be doubtful. But I've personally (private opinion) come to the conclusion that it would be valid. I can see no reason why it would not be ... given all the cases (casuistry) where it would be valid that one by one rule out the different alleged requirements set forth.
-
Yeah, both could be done, instruction on perfect contrition and a conditional absolution if there's a danger of death scenario.
In the practical order, it must be considered doubtful, until the Church rules on it, since most theologians hold it to be doubtful. But I've personally (private opinion) come to the conclusion that it would be valid. I can see no reason why it would not be ... given all the cases (casuistry) where it would be valid that one by one rule out the different alleged requirements set forth.
Did you see my post above from the Casuist?
-
Sorry Lad that I didn’t respond sooner, I was away. Below is a case from the Casuist, I believe it answers your question. Especially see what I highlighted in red.
What is the Casuist QVD? Does it hold theological weight? Because it does seem to answer the question.
-
What is the Casuist QVD? Does it hold theological weight? Because it does seem to answer the question.
It’s a 4 volume set of pastoral and moral theology cases answered by theologians. Yes, it does hold weight.
-
Did you see my post above from the Casuist?
I just saw it now. I'm still not convinced. Much of the talk is around liceity. Where it gets into the meat of it at the end, is in denying that there's a moral presence over the telephone. I would dispute that. When you're holding a conversation with someone over the telephone, it would seem to me that there's clearly a moral presence, an exchange of thoughts, interaction, etc. There are a lot of conflated thoughts that individually do not stand up, such as the penitent needing to present himself to the priest. What if he's dying and unconscious? If a voice is required to establish moral presence, then what of people who are mute? If physical proximity is required, then what of scenarios where a priest might give absolution to a very large crowed. This article admits that both Divine Revelation and the Church have been silent on the matter, and is deferring to the theologians, and I find myself disagreeing with those theologians. Even the writer admits that there's a "slight possibility" that there's moral presence via telephone. That leaves a lot of room for questioning. If there's a probability, even slight, then why? If there's no probability, then that should be stated. There needs to be a solid definition of moral presence. To me, if two minds are exchanging thoughts over a telephone, that would constitute a moral presence. Distance per se is no impediment to a juridical act of the Church. At some point, the Church (i.e. the actual Catholic Church) would have to weigh in on the matter, other than declaring it illicit. In fact, to me, the Church declaring it illicit almost implies that it would be valid. We'll have to see when the Church is restored. But in the meantime, given the possibility (even if slight), in danger of death, it would be permitted. If I were the Holy Office, I would hold it to be valid but illicit (and possibly invalid by Church law) except in danger of death.
To me, the answer about whether this Father Paul acted prudently should be in the affirmative. Father Paul gave the absolution conditionally. If, as is admitted, there's some possibility that it would be valid, it's permitted in danger of death when there's no other alternative, as was clearly the case in the Father Paul scenario. Question was not whether it was valid, but whether Father Paul acted prudently. I think Father Paul did act prudently ... whether or not the absolution was ultimately valid or not (he did do it conditionally to safeguard the Sacrament). To my mind, they were answering the wrong question.
-
Agreed. If someone is dying, and the only way to administer absolution is over the phone, better that, than nothing at all. The worst thing that can happen, is that it would be invalid. Epikeia would certainly kick in here.
Seconded. It does make sense in a weird way. If one must avail themselves of an alternative, then yes, better this than nothing at all.
-
Seconded. It does make sense in a weird way. If one must avail themselves of an alternative, then yes, better this than nothing at all.
Yes, under normal circuмstances, one may not approach doubtful Sacraments, but it is permitted in danger of death when there's no alternative.
-
It’s a 4 volume set of pastoral and moral theology cases answered by theologians. Yes, it does hold weight.
Thank you QvD. I wonder if there was some way to copy and paste the text into a CI post (without having to type in the whole text). I'd like to quote some of it and comment on what is actually stated, but I don't see how. If there isn't a way, then I'll try to get back to it when I have more time to literally retype some of it.