Touching on others’ comments: Such Examinations are an ancient practice. The book I used actually recommends making notes of one’s sins to better be able to remember them in the confessional.

To Mrs. Scalia’s concerns, I think we need to beware making the perfect the enemy of the good. Finding that old book’s Examination of Conscience and instructions on going to Confession made me more, not less, likely to finally go, even if it has yet to complete the job. It gave me information and preparation tools about this most hidden of Sacraments. As an Anglican, I couldn’t just look it up in our Catechism. But the breadth of the Roman Catholic Church’s Catechism can make it almost as difficult for a shy or ignorant Roman Catholic to obtain the relevant information in his Church as it would be for me to obtain the information in my Church.

The book Pardon and Peace suggests too that penitents commonly overemphasize the examination of conscience. Our conscience generally accuses us quite well, during the time it takes us to stand in line, of the times we gave full consent with knowledge of what we were doing. Neither is the examination, which should be brief, meant to be a self-course in moral theology or a fishing expedition for the scrupulous or the perverse. The penitent should move on to formulating true sorrow and then a firm purpose of amendment–which the app apparently does not address at all (how could it?).

The imprimatur from Fort Wayne is unfortunate because these errors are those of omission and because the content of the app, even if error-free, is ripe for misuse. People today cannot remember the state capitals or spell common words, relying on Google and spell-check-as-you-type. Now would-be penitents will be outsourcing the recollection of their own acts to the memory in the phone, an act of psychologically distancing oneself from one’s sins, exactly the opposite of the intent of the examen. For it is Christ who separates us from our sins, at the price of the Cross.

Finally, von Speyr comments that the penitent should approach the sacrament aware that absolution is not guaranteed, that the priest may bind as well as loose. Is there a BIND subroutine for that “option” in the iPhone app? Or is the unconscious bias, already well represented in our day, in favor of presuming on God’s mercy, issuing forth like water when one turns a spigot, or touches a button on a little screen?

The first–the misconception that the app is anything more than a pamphlet examination of conscience transferred onto a digital screen–is already addressed by several commenters above.

The second misconception is that the Catholic Church has “endorsed” the app. In fact, the app simply received an “imprimatur” from one bishop in Indiana. An “imprimatur” is, in a nutshell, a bishop’s statement that a book (or in this case, an app) that receives the imprimatur is free of doctrinal error. A statement that a book or app is free of doctrinal error is NOT the same thing as an endorsement. There are thousands of books out there with imprimaturs, and yet the media (correctly) doesn’t claim each and every book that receives the imprimatur is “endorsed” or “official” Church teaching.

Of course, asking reporters to take a minute to understand these distinctions is far, far too much too ask when the reporter has the chance to grab a few facts, throw in a little inaccuracy and shock value, and drive up reader hit counts.

This situation is simply example #10,245 of the mainstream media’s inability to accurately report on any religious issue.

Evangelization and administration of the faith must take full advantage of the advances in technology. Of course, as with any new technology, there are dangers in misappropriating it and losing the essence of one’s primary purpose. Benedict’s recent guidance in this matter is wise.

I don’t know: can a priest hear confession over a telephone? I do know that it doesn’t require a church or a confessional, just a place of focused communication.

In any event, mystical body of Christ, embrace the new avenues of transmitting the Gospel! Google (or YouTube) Father Barron and Word on Fire to witness a fantastic example of this embrace of technology. This First Things website is another example of proclaiming the unchanging message through innovated media, is it not?

This week we heard proclaimed a continuation of Matthew’s account of the Sermon on the Mount. In the homily that followed our priest took note of the physical contours of the hillside, where Jesus’s voice could carry a stentorian distance without aid. In this millennium we are blessed with the mother of all megaphones — the multimedia internet. What better “content provider” than the Good News itself?

More than any other sacrament, confession has been left behind, a presumed relic of an earlier age. For that reason alone we should seek ways to bring it back into people’s lives, to remind them of its salutary importance.

We are still individuals in severe psychological need to confess our sins. But because substitutes like Dr. Phil have seized the most ubiquitous technological platform of their era, we unload our burden to inadequate secular shamans. The next platform, the internet, is still up for grabs, but even that vacuum is already being filled by untutored opportunists:

http://e-admit.com/

Neither a rejection of iPhone app technology nor an uncritical embrace of it will suffice. Magisterial adoption of these unprecedented means of communication could bring light to the darkest places in creation.

I can’t imagine using an iPod to read at Mass. Even a Kindle is a bit small. But maybe an iPad? There’s nothing sacrilegious there, just the visual presence and tradition behind a book lectionary. But there was a time when the transition was made from scrolls to books. I may be mistaken but I believe many (most?) Jews still use a scroll for the Torah.

I haven’t seen the app — I’m decidedly not cool enough to own an iPhone, though my grandmother has one, so make of that what you will — but what you’ve described is not the administration of the sacrament of confession — which could never be administered via app. Rather, it appears to be a tool to help make going to confession more effective and less daunting.

One of the general requirements for a good confession is for the penitent to have made an examination of conscience beforehand; confession forgives all sins, including ones not confessed due to accidental ommission, but the penitent needs to make an honest effort to recall everything. Sheets or lists of common sins or categories of sins to help make a thorough examination have been common for centuries; it appears — especially after reading the Anchoress post to which you linked — that this app is a fairly thorough, interactive examination.

The deficiencies she notes are possibly real enough. But all it is is an interactive examination of conscience, something a penitent typically does outside of the confessional anyway. It isn’t an application of the sacrament and it doesn’t grant absolution.