Case XXIV: Confession by Telephone?

Case.—A certain priest, by name Paul, had brought into play all manner of artifice that might secure him an entrance into the house of a Freemason, whose wife, Mary, lay grievously ill, but all in vain. He was on the point of despairing when he discovered that the house was equipped with a telephone. Through the assistance of a servant in the house, Paul was enabled to obtain communication with the sick woman, and, having heard her confession over the "phone," gave her conditional absolution.

Now the question arises: Did Paul act prudently? Our answer is in the negative, and for the reasons we will now set forth.

Solution.—Before all else, the penitent must be truly present to the confessor, for an absent person can never be absolved. This we know, in the first place, from the condemnation made by Pope Clement VIII of the following proposition: “It is lawful sacramentally to confess sins by letter or messenger to an absent confessor and to obtain absolution from that same absent confessor.” And Pope Paul V, approving of Clement's action, declared the condemnation to extend to both members of the proposition, even separately considered. Secondly, we know this from the Council of Trent, where, speaking of the nature of the Sacrament of Penance, it is said: “Christ instituted this sacrament in such a way that He willed penitents to be arraigned before this tribunal as defendants and to be freed from sins by the judgment of priests.” These words call for no more and no less than the presence of a criminal before a judge.

The penitent, then, must be present to the confessor. But how? Morally or physically? Theologians are our guides in this matter, and in this they are sure guides, seeing that they all agree in demanding a moral presence. What, then, we may inquire, is moral presence? These same theologians tell us, definitely or satisfactorily enough we do not say, that men are morally present to one another when they can speak with the ordinary voice (voce communi), though pitched in a higher key. Again we find some who extend this presence to twenty paces. The limit, however, is reached by those theologians who hold that the required moral presence is had if the confessor sees or by any one sense perceives the penitent, and this in the natural or human way. We now conclude that the presence required for valid absolution is had only when the confessor can perceive the penitent at least by one sense, and in the natural way, i. e., aided only by nature, e. g., the sun, air, etc.

Indefinite as this notion of moral presence may be, we will now apply it to the case in hand. At the very outset, we can say that if this presence is had, it is only by means of the telephone. Through no other medium can Mary, lying ill in her home, be said to be present, either physically or morally, to Paul, who is now in the telephone station. Our question, then, concerns itself only with this circumstance of communication. Assuredly, this communication does not take away the distance, nor does it render those present to each other who are, de facto, at a distance, for at most it is but an efficacious medium of communication between absent persons. This is no new doctrine, for if we ask the general opinion of prudent men on this matter we will receive the same verdict—that the telephone does not create presence, but is only a means of communicating with an absent person. From the mere fact, then, of two persons being in communication it does not follow that they are present to each other, as can easily be seen in the case of communication had through a messenger, or again, by means of a letter.

For fear this notion of moral presence may be, as yet, too indefinite or abstract, we will now take a concrete example of it—to be had, we think, in the case of hearing Mass. To fulfil our obligation of hearing Mass we must at least be morally present, so that we would ' '€ reckoned among the number of those assisting at the offering of the Holy Sacrifice. Could this be had through the telephone? Is it likely that any one would admit that a person could hear Mass over the "phone"? Assuredly not. And why? Because the telephone does not supply moral presence. Still St. Alphonsus says: "Praesentia pro absolutione majorem propinquitatem requirit quam pro audienda missa." With this saying before us we can reasonably hold that the moral presence, required by the theologians, demands, if we may be permitted the expression, a local nearness, and we likewise contend that one would change the meaning of the words in affirming that Paul and Mary were truly present to each other.

Our next endeavor will be to discover the mind of Jesus Christ anent this matter—the presence required for a valid absolution. Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted seven Means of Grace, called sacraments. These seven sacraments, we might do well to note here, are separate entities instituted, each and every one of them, for a different purpose. A sacrament is a sign—an efficacious sign of grace. A sign is made up of two elements—the thing to be signified or symbolized, i. e., the idea of Christ, and the symbol or rite, which in turn is composed of two elements—one real or sensible, called matter, and the other verbal, called the form. Of the seven sacraments two were instituted in specie, i. e., Christ not ony gave the Church the idea to be symbolized, but also the matter and form which constitute the symbol. The other five Christ instituted in genere, i. e., He gave the Church the idea to be symbolized, and left her free to choose apt instruments to signify the idea. The Sacrament of Penance was instituted in genere.

The Council of Trent tells us that the Church can not change, in fact, can do nothing regarding the substance of the sacraments, i. e., the idea Christ had in instituting them. If, then, our notion of moral presence is included in the idea of Christ, which is the substance of the sacrament, the Church can not change it one jot or tittle. If, on the other hand, it is contained in the symbol, the Church can, at her discretion and according to the needs of the time, change it. But, de facto, she has, up to this, in no way modified it. What we must do, then, is to discover the mind of Christ—His idea in this matter.

We find nothing concerning it in the teaching of Christ, and, moreover, the Church, in her teaching, has not a word. We must go to the theologians and the practice of the Church for a solution. All theologians teach that Christ instituted penance for the remission of all sins committed after baptism—that this was His idea. But what we are especially concerned about is the symbol or rite regarding the determination of which the Church, we admit, was allowed a certain amount of latitude—an apt symbol, one that would clearly represent Christ's idea, made up of two elements, which theologians for convenience's sake have analogically called matter and form. As we have already stated, each of the sacraments has a symbol or rite in which these two elements may be distinguished. That same connection must be had between the matter and form of each symbol, all will admit, and that this connection may be different for different sacraments, is demanded by the fact that the sacraments, notwithstanding a certain more or less artificial uniformity, belong to disparate categories of things. What connection, then, does the Sacrament of Penance require between its matter and form? What presence is demanded to exist between the penitent supplying the matter and the confessor pronouncing the words of the form? In a word, according to the mind or idea of our Saviour, what presence must exist between Mary, confessing her sins, and Paul, giving her absolution? For an answer to this question we must betake ourselves to the theologians and the practice of the Church.

The theologians have always taught that the penitent should present himself before the confessor as does the criminal before the judge. They have always demanded, for the validity of the absolution, that the penitent be present to the confessor so that the words of the form, pronounced in the ordinary way, should fall upon the penitent in like manner. This the Church also has always demanded, and as we see from her practice, has always obtained. This, then, is the idea of Christ which demands this presence for the validity of the absolution. But this presence is certainly not had through the telephone, as all theologians admit, and no necessity, no matter how great, can supply it, though some theologians, by a queer process of reasoning, come to this conclusion.

The case of these latter theologians would not be altogether hopeless, but would have some probability in its favor, if the human voice was heard through the telephone, for, then, there would be a slight probability of the telephone creating moral presence. In this matter we must have recourse to science. What does she say? Her verdict is that we do not hear the human voice, but only a physical reproduction, or rather, a physical effect of the voice. After along struggle we may get her to admit that perhaps the human voice is heard, but more than this is required to produce a slight probability of moral presence, for a slight probability is a true probability, and, consequently, demands one good, solid motive. A slight probability is so called not because it has for its foundation a slight motive, but because it is of a lower grade of a true probability. We hold, then, that a slight probability is not had in this case, and still a slight probability is necessary, even in a case of extreme necessity, for the licit administration of the sacraments.

Because of these reasons we conclude that the presence, necessary for the validity of the absolution, is not obtained through the means of communication called the telephone, and consequently that Paul. in this case, acted imprudently.