Do you really think that one of these guys is more ridiculous than the other? Why? It's primitive superstition in both cases.
Is it crazier to think that garlic will ward off vampires than to think that a cross will do it? It's not. It's equally crazy, because vampires are just fictional.
Whether you think that demons can be cast out of people using Skype or you think priests need to use a hands-on method to perform exorcisms misses the whole point that demons don't actually exist.
OK, OK, I can't prove that demons don't exist. I can't prove that vampires don't exist, either - or werewolves, or leprechauns, or pixies. But we have no good reason, no good evidence, to believe that they do.
In both cases, this is just superstition, religiously-based superstition. These two priests are equally faith-based. Their beliefs are different - slightly different - because they've got no good reason to believe what they believe, anyway. They're both just believing what they want to believe.
If faith is a valid reason for believing anything (it isn't), you can literally believe anything you want. The priest using Skype to perform exorcisms is no more ridiculous than the priest performing exorcisms any other way, because exorcisms are ridiculous no matter how you perform them.
(Note that all exorcisms aren't equally dangerous, because people have been killed in attempted exorcisms. But they're equally ridiculous. Before you cast demons out of people, why not show us some evidence that demons actually exist?)