My only personal experience at having an interpreter present for Masses I was celebrating were Funeral Masses for the mother and the father of a large Catholic family, of whom about half the sons and daughters were deaf or partially deaf, and the others were not. The whole Mass was interpreted, but I arranged to get the text of my homilies to the interpreter beforehand, on both occasions, so that the interpreter could work out the translation in advance.
I'd love to learn more about the arguments surrounding the validity of consecrations that are signed:
- Peters argues in the affirmative, but what are the arguments against?
- Peters claims that "what is required for sacramental form is the direct expression or communication of the form, not its ‘orality,." Would this same logic permit a priest using solely a TTS/AAC device? Or writing out the form and holding it up for people to read?
- Based on what was cited here, the most recent guidance from Rome was Paul VI, who said that the celebrant must both sign and speak the form. Did Rome ever issue a follow up that permitted priests to sign exclusively? If not, when did this begin? Did local bishops approve it?
From the article: "For example: When the text of the Mass reads “Lord” or “you,” which person of the Trinity is it addressing? And how does the priest indicate that?"
I find this puzzling. There is the exact same ambiguity with spoken language. I imagine there is a good reason why it is more of a problem in sign language, but I can't figure out what it is - if anyone can shed light on this, I'd very much appreciate it !
I am totally guessing, but I could imagine it being more of a problem if sign language has different ways to render "Lord" or "you" depending on what the answer is. An analogous situation might be struggling to decide how to render "you" when you're going from English into a language that has separate words for you-singular and you-plural
I knew there was a deaf parish in the archdiocese but I didn’t realize it was so close to me!
I’ve seen ASL interpretation at masses at the Basillica in DC and it was actually really sweet to see the attendants needing interpretation signing with the interpreter during mass.
I pray that the deaf can get more access to mass and the sacraments - I am sure that confession is also a difficult barrier - and I hope that the Church offers an ASL translation of the Mass.
1) It seems to me that until the words of consecration in ASL are approved, they should be spoken aloud as well as signed to ensure validity. Ed Peters is the man, but "orality" seems paramount in spite of his disagreement.
2) I understand the positive desire on the part of the priests and deaf to not see their disability as a hindrance ("we do not think of it as a disability"), but at the same time I read somewhere that Jesus "made the deaf to hear and the mute to speak." Ears are meant for hearing. That's a point that probably falls in to the category of "true, but not very helpful." I'm glad there's a growing place in the Church for deaf brothers and sisters.
Great story. Would be great to know if every diocese has a Chaplain for Deaf Ministry.
My only personal experience at having an interpreter present for Masses I was celebrating were Funeral Masses for the mother and the father of a large Catholic family, of whom about half the sons and daughters were deaf or partially deaf, and the others were not. The whole Mass was interpreted, but I arranged to get the text of my homilies to the interpreter beforehand, on both occasions, so that the interpreter could work out the translation in advance.
I'd love to learn more about the arguments surrounding the validity of consecrations that are signed:
- Peters argues in the affirmative, but what are the arguments against?
- Peters claims that "what is required for sacramental form is the direct expression or communication of the form, not its ‘orality,." Would this same logic permit a priest using solely a TTS/AAC device? Or writing out the form and holding it up for people to read?
- Based on what was cited here, the most recent guidance from Rome was Paul VI, who said that the celebrant must both sign and speak the form. Did Rome ever issue a follow up that permitted priests to sign exclusively? If not, when did this begin? Did local bishops approve it?
I have the same questions.
Very interesting!
From the article: "For example: When the text of the Mass reads “Lord” or “you,” which person of the Trinity is it addressing? And how does the priest indicate that?"
I find this puzzling. There is the exact same ambiguity with spoken language. I imagine there is a good reason why it is more of a problem in sign language, but I can't figure out what it is - if anyone can shed light on this, I'd very much appreciate it !
I am totally guessing, but I could imagine it being more of a problem if sign language has different ways to render "Lord" or "you" depending on what the answer is. An analogous situation might be struggling to decide how to render "you" when you're going from English into a language that has separate words for you-singular and you-plural
Excellent to see the Church is working to make the Mass accessible to all.
I knew there was a deaf parish in the archdiocese but I didn’t realize it was so close to me!
I’ve seen ASL interpretation at masses at the Basillica in DC and it was actually really sweet to see the attendants needing interpretation signing with the interpreter during mass.
I pray that the deaf can get more access to mass and the sacraments - I am sure that confession is also a difficult barrier - and I hope that the Church offers an ASL translation of the Mass.
Two thoughts:
1) It seems to me that until the words of consecration in ASL are approved, they should be spoken aloud as well as signed to ensure validity. Ed Peters is the man, but "orality" seems paramount in spite of his disagreement.
2) I understand the positive desire on the part of the priests and deaf to not see their disability as a hindrance ("we do not think of it as a disability"), but at the same time I read somewhere that Jesus "made the deaf to hear and the mute to speak." Ears are meant for hearing. That's a point that probably falls in to the category of "true, but not very helpful." I'm glad there's a growing place in the Church for deaf brothers and sisters.