Case 14. Absolution by Telephone

Titius, a Catholic priest, with great scandal to the faithful and in contempt of the obligations by which he was bound, attempted marriage with a certain woman, with whom he afterwards lived in a secular manner for several years as a businessman. At length Caius, a priest and former friend, heard that Titius had been placed in danger of death; he immediately went to the sick man’s house and, with the intention of helping Titius, asked to be admitted. The woman harshly refused him entrance, affirming that the physician had most strictly forbidden entrance to everyone. Inflamed with zeal to save the soul, Caius devised every means by which he could communicate with Titius. He heard that Titius had a telephone in his private room by which he communicated with the office in the city. Caius hastened to the office and, having obtained permission under a certain pretext to use the telephone, spoke with Titius, disposed him to penance by his fervent exhortations, and, after Titius had confessed, absolved him by means of the telephone. Afterwards, however, doubting about the absolution given, he consults a theologian. Hence it is asked:

1. What is required to absolve penitents lawfully and validly?

2. Is a confession made by one absent or an absolution given by one absent valid?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is required for validly and lawfully absolving penitents?

Besides what is requisite on the part of the minister of Penance and of the penitent, there are certain conditions required for valid and lawful giving of absolution. For validity the form of words, “ I absolve thee from thy sins,” or at least, “ I absolve thee,” is necessary; and at the time of absolution the confessor and penitent must be morally present to each other. The latter condition is interpreted to mean that the penitent must not be further removed from the confessor when absolution is given than the ordinary tone of voice will carry. For the lawful administration of Penance the rubrics of the Ritual must be observed, and in particular the form of absolution given there must be used, and the priest should have on surplice and stole.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 175.

2. Is confession or absolution valid when made or given by one who is absent?

No. This conclusion follows from the absolute prohibition under all circumstances by Clement VIII, 20 June, 1602, of confession made by letter to an absent priest or of absolution given by a priest to an absent penitent.²

2 Ibid., 164.

3. The case. Most of the theologians who have treated the question consider that absolution given by telephone is invalid. The speakers are not morally present to each other; the instrument is a means of speaking with the absent and distant. But, as we have seen, moral presence of confessor and penitent is necessary for the validity of Penance. On the ground that by using the telephone the voice of the confessor reaches the penitent, some theologians hold that absolution given by telephone is valid. Others would allow a confessor to use the instrument in a case of extreme necessity. There was extreme necessity in the case proposed, so that Caius is not to be blamed for what he did. On being asked whether it is lawful to give absolution by telephone in a case of extreme necessity, the Sacred Penitentiary answered, 1 July 1884; “ Nothing is to be answered.”