ASL Mass

[BusterMartin]

I found this parish and I understand the priest is also deaf.

St. Benedict Parish for the Deaf and Hearing Impaired

1801 Octavia St.
San Francisco, 94109
(415) 567-9855
TTY: (415) 567-0438
Administrator: Fr. Xavier Lavagetto, O.P.
Chaplain: Fr. Paul Zirimenya
Masses
All services conducted in American Sign Language
Sunday: 10:30 am
Every 4th Sunday of the month: 4 pm in ASL at Marin Catholic High School Chapel

We also have a priest at our Cathedral who, although is not deaf, has learned ASL to help the deaf community. One of the Sunday Masses is said and signed simultaneously by the priest. He has an interpreter for times when he isn’t talking, but he mostly signs when doing that Mass.

When he signs and has to do certain prescribed hand motions for the Mass (such as raising his arms or folding his hands), he still does them but briefly so that he can sign what was said. Every audible word, motion, and gesture is in place…just some physical movements don’t last as long as normal. It’s really interesting to see…

 

[IgnatiusDaughtr]

I took American Sign Language in college and would go to the ASL Mass at the seminary from time to time. There is a priest in the Archdiocese of Boston who is deaf, and from time to time there would be visiting priests who were also deaf, some who used ASL and some who used British Sign Language. The priest would sign, since he was deaf, and there was a spoken interpreter for the Mass, just the opposite of when there are ASL interpreters at large Masses, like a baccalaureate or the Mass for Life at the Basilica in Washington D.C.

deafcatholic.org/

 

[starsmurf]

Can you explain this further please? I admittedly don’t know sign language, but I’ve witnessed hearing people sign while speaking English.

This is called Signed English and uses the signs of ASL, usually with the adding of fake grammatical endings like “-ing”. It is extremely difficult for a Deaf person to understand, as the grammar of spoken English is not suited to the visual method of a sign language. Also, when hearing people use Signed English, as it is not possible for them to sign at the same rate as they speak, they often miss out signs, leaving gaps in the message for Deaf people and making it even harder to interpret the meaning of what they are signing.

ASL and all other true sign languages, in my case I learned British Sign Language (BSL), are languages in their own right. They are not pantomimes, they are not primative, they are every bit as much a language as English and equally capable of expression. The Church must stop this terrible discrimination against Deaf people. It is not easy or sometimes even possible for a person who was born deaf or lost their hearing before the age of about 3 to learn English, or whatever the spoken language of their country is. Therefore preventing ASL or whatever the native sign language is being used for the Mass prevents Deaf people accessing it. That is surely a tragedy that we must stop from happening.

 

[starsmurf]

ASL is English. The purpose of sign is to make the native language easier to understand for someone who cannot hear the words.

No it is not. It was developed at the American School for the Deaf in the 1800s. It is not a visual form of English, that is a different method of signing, called appropriately enough Signed English. ASL is actually based on French Sign Language and it is easier for an ASL user to understand a Deaf person from France than from the UK.

Numerous university departments around the world have studied Sign Languages, they have concluded that they are independant, true languages, seperate from the spoken language around them. Do you really think that the poor little Deaf people sat aorund unable to communicate until some lovely hearing people came and “invented” a way for them to talk?

The grammar your brother is describing is not true ASL, he has been taught a form of Signed English which is very common, and some users refer to it as ASL. “I go to the store” in ASL would be “ME GO-TO STORE ME” in the standard glosses used to transcribe ASL. It is prefectly possible to translate the Mass into ASL, just as it can be translated into any spoken language, the problem only exists in the Signed English your brother describes. I have seen the Mass interpreted (the correct term) by a proper BSL interpreter (I’m in the UK) and it was not “my body”, “my blood”. No true language speaks like that, what you are describing is again Signed English.

 

[Aramis]

There are really 4 different approaches to signing in use.
ASL is a strongly inflected visual language. The sign has a meaning, but how it’s done can alter that meaning.
ASL English is ASL signs where the corresponding word occurs in English; usually done without endings. So, “I am going to the store” becomes “I go store.”
Signing Exact English using ASL: adds signs for common endings. It’s very frustrating for everyone, as the signs flow less well with the syntactical markers, but it’s still readily intelligible.
The original “Signing Exact English”, often called SEE-Sign or C-Sign, uses a different set of signs, with about an 80% overlap with ASL. It’s dying out, as the deaf community prefers ASL by a wide margin. The -ing, -er, and other marker signs can be used with ASL to sign English using ASL signs plus SEE-Sign markers.

I’ve never met a deaf person who uses ASL who couldn’t understand Exact English ASL. Most of them I’ve talked with simply like being able to sign with the hearing world, and if you sign exact english, no problem. They will most likely not use the endings, but will respond in ASL only, fingerspelling if needed for clarity. They DO complain when those 20% of non-overlap signs for those taught only SEE-Sign crop up.

 

[dans0622]

I read it differently. The “article,” originally intended as a letter to the editor, does not directly address the topic. However, it implies that ASL possesses the attributes of any other language, and thus would be suitable for celebration of the mass, although a few new words and phrases might have to be coined to match the current Roman Missal. This is in contrast to the article Peters is replying to in Adoremus Bulletin, which was apparently more negative in assessing the role that ASL could play in the mass.

What is clear is that [as of 1997] ASL has not been approved as a liturgical language, and thus any ASL mass would be illicit.

Right. Dr. Peters, in a “real” article published a few years ago in* Studia canonica*, made a persuasive argument that there is no reason to doubt the validity of Sacraments that have a form “performed” entirely in sign language with no vocalization at all. So, is such a Mass valid? I would say it certainly is, as long as the signs used convey the essential meaning of the form (this is my body, this is my blood, etc).

Practically, it seems that the Church also accepts such a celebration as licit, despite what was said in 1965, since there have been many mute men ordained as priests over the past 30-something years. A definite declaration of this, from CDWDS or Pope, would be welcome.

Dan

 

[hilde_the_dog]

How many years would it take for Rome to authorize such a Mass, given it took 10 years or so just to retranslate parts of the spoken english mass?

 

[MusicMan]

ASL and all other true sign languages, in my case I learned British Sign Language (BSL), are languages in their own right. They are not pantomimes, they are not primative, they are every bit as much a language as English and equally capable of expression. The Church must stop this terrible discrimination against Deaf people. It is not easy or sometimes even possible for a person who was born deaf or lost their hearing before the age of about 3 to learn English, or whatever the spoken language of their country is. Therefore preventing ASL or whatever the native sign language is being used for the Mass prevents Deaf people accessing it. That is surely a tragedy that we must stop from happening.

It seems to be that the Church has no issue with the Mass being interpreted, nor does it have an issue with the Mass being signed, so long as the Mass is also vocalized as well.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I read it differently. The “article,” originally intended as a letter to the editor, does not directly address the topic. However, it implies that ASL possesses the attributes of any other language, and thus would be suitable for celebration of the mass, although a few new words and phrases might have to be coined to match the current Roman Missal. This is in contrast to the article Peters is replying to in Adoremus Bulletin, which was apparently more negative in assessing the role that ASL could play in the mass.

What is clear is that [as of 1997] ASL has not been approved as a liturgical language, and thus any ASL mass would be illicit.

Oh absolutely. I cited that article for its actual use of canon law, not for its persuasive slant.

 

[Aramis]

Note that an “ASL Mass” uses the American English translation of the missal. Most signers of ASL will use ASL-English mode when reading a written text; they will tend not to use the SEE markers for endings, etc., but will “say” the text in the order written. The one priest I’ve seen using ASL for the Mass (an excerpt, on the net, years ago) was signing in English order what was in the Missal, missing only the ending marker signs.

 

[Digitonomy]

"xixxvmcmc85:

An article on this canon law website seems to say that ASL is not recognized as a liturgical language so a valid Mass cannot be “said” in ASL alone

Oh absolutely. I cited that article for its actual use of canon law, not for its persuasive slant.

Now I’m confused. It sounds like you agree with my post, in which I thought I was disagreeing with yours.

If you think that an ASL-only mass would be invalid, I disagree.
If you think that the linked canon law site is taking that position, I disagree.
If you think something else, please clear up my confusion.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Now I’m confused. It sounds like you agree with my post, in which I thought I was disagreeing with yours.

If you think that an ASL-only mass would be invalid, I disagree.
If you think that the linked canon law site is taking that position, I disagree.
If you think something else, please clear up my confusion.

Oh I see the confusion now, and it’s due to my mincing of words. Mea culpa

Valid? It seems so (though the Adoremus article to which the article I posted was responding seems to argue that there’s something inherently invalid about a non-spoken consecration. I honestly don’t know enough about ASL to have an informed opinion about it).

Licit? No

 

[MusicMan]

I will issue this quibble and then sit back and see how the discussion weaves:

ASL is a spoken language. It is a language that was created to enable the Deaf to speak, and then became a living language all it’s own. What makes it different from other languages is that it does not require vocalization, although you will often see the words “mouthed” to match the gestures, and you may even hear the gestures vocalized.

Since the Missal commands the priest to say such and such words, would ASL be acceptable, because it could be argued that the Culture that it exists for uses it as a spoken language, or does the words “say,” “says,” “speaks” etc. implicitly imply vocalization?

 

[Digitonomy]

Since the Missal commands the priest to say such and such words, would ASL be acceptable, because it could be argued that the Culture that it exists for uses it as a spoken language, or does the words “say,” “says,” “speaks” etc. implicitly imply vocalization?

If and when the use of ASL for mass is approved, an indult could be granted to allow non-spoken signing where the GIRM indicates otherwise, or the simple fact of ASL’s approval could constitute an official interpretation of the GIRM to include signing in the definition of “speaks.”

Until that happens, I would take the position that “speak” and similar words should be strictly defined.