CathInfo.com

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.

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.