Note 92 — Part I PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT

Cf. Reuter, Neoconfess. l. c. n. 31; Scavini, Theologia Moralis Universa, Tom IV. n. 77; Müller, l. c. § 132; Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VI. Tom. V. cp. IV. n. 215, Q. 6. In accordance with this teaching we must solve the question raised whether absolution given by telephone is valid. (Aloys. Sabetti, S.J., in Collegio SS. Cordis ad Woodstock, Th. Mor. Prof., Compend. Theol. Moral. Gury ... ad breviorem formam redactum, etc. Benziger, 1884; Alphons. Eschbach e Cong. S. Spiritus et Imm. Cord. M. Rectoris Sem. Gall. Romæ, La Confession par téléphone; Melata, Manuale Theol. Moralis, De Pœnit. cp. II. art. I.) It is certain that the use of the telephone for giving absolution is extra casum necessitatis a grave sin because it introduces into the administration of the Sacraments a practice which is novel and liable to misuse. The case is limited to the question whether in urgent need the use of such a method can be tolerated—if, for instance, a member of a secret society, seized with a dangerous illness and anxious to be reconciled with the Church, but debarred by his associates from the sight of a priest, could make use of the telephone placed in his room to call up a friendly priest and make his confession to him and receive absolution through the telephone. Eschbach, in his work mentioned above, teaches that such an absolution is quite invalid. Sabetti acknowledges that the solution of the question involves many difficulties, and that it ought to be submitted to the decision of the Holy See; he appears, however, to incline to an affirmative answer. He says: Though it is true that moral presence and a connection between matter and form are necessary in every Sacrament, yet this exigency varies. Since Penance has been instituted on the lines of an earthly tribunal, in which judge and accused must be so far present to one another as to be able to speak together, the absolution in the given case cannot be said for certain to be invalid, since one might always argue that the priest and the penitent could speak together. Against this, it may be objected that the illustration of an earthly tribunal is not quite applicable, since here the presence of the accused is not necessary, for he may be condemned in contumaciam. To the question whether in casu extremæ necessitatis dari possit absolutio per telephonium? the Pœnitentiaria replied, July 1, 1884: Nihil esse respondendum.—Bucceroni, Enchiridion Morale (Romæ, 1887), p. 119.