ASL Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Montalo

Guest
I have not saw this done, but i was in discussion with a friend, and it lead me to think.

Would a Mass signed in American Sign Language(ASL) be valid?

Assuming he signed a perfect translation from the english(or latin, for that matter), and nothing else that could possible invalidate said Mass was present?
 
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, however a priest may use ASL with English (or Latin, or any other valid language) simultaneously. Furthermore the faithful may do the responses in ASL, and the use of ASL interpreters is entirely licit.

canonlaw.info/a_signlanguage1.htm
 
Why is ASL not a “licit” language? What would be the reaction if the Church turned to any other group and told them that their language wasn’t suitible for the Mass? If this is the case, the Church needs to change this rule fast. Sign languages have been studied and have been shown to be languages like any other, simply transmitted in a different way.

It is impossible to use ASL and English or any other spoken language at the same time. The grammatical structure is too different. Therefore this ruling means that priests cannot use ASL at all, only one of the forms of Signed English, which is very difficult for a Deaf person to understand.
 
starsmurf said:
It is impossible to use ASL and English or any other spoken language at the same time. The grammatical structure is too different. Therefore this ruling means that priests cannot use ASL at all, only one of the forms of Signed English, which is very difficult for a Deaf person to understand.
Click to expand...
Can you explain this further please? I admittedly don’t know sign language, but I’ve witnessed hearing people sign while speaking English.
 
It’s not a widely spoken vernacular among a discrete nation of people, it’s using gestures to express national languages, such as English, which is spoken by the majority of residents of a specific country (such as the US.) The hearing impaired people are using ASL to communicate in a different language, in other words. And it’s great that it is used for accessibility for the Mass.

I’m thinking, too, of the logistics: the priest would have to have three hands to be able to perform the correct liturgical gestures and sign simultaneously!
 
starsmurf said:
Why is ASL not a “licit” language? What would be the reaction if the Church turned to any other group and told them that their language wasn’t suitible for the Mass? If this is the case, the Church needs to change this rule fast. Sign languages have been studied and have been shown to be languages like any other, simply transmitted in a different way.

It is impossible to use ASL and English or any other spoken language at the same time. The grammatical structure is too different. Therefore this ruling means that priests cannot use ASL at all, only one of the forms of Signed English, which is very difficult for a Deaf person to understand.
Click to expand...
S.E.E. isn’t that hard for the deaf community to understand; My brother in law and his wife, and their friends, find it cumbersome, not unintelligible. Comparable to Shakespeare vs modern English. They do find it hard to USE.

And my BIL, while deaf, does speak english while signing ASL to the hearing. So it’s not impossible. (His wife does not do so. She seldom tries.)

At present, there is no fixed method of writing ASL. Rome has always required a written form, inventing one if needed, for liturgical and paraliturgical prayer.
 
Aramis said:
S.E.E. isn’t that hard for the deaf community to understand; My brother in law and his wife, and their friends, find it cumbersome, not unintelligible. Comparable to Shakespeare vs modern English. They do find it hard to USE.

And my BIL, while deaf, does speak english while signing ASL to the hearing. So it’s not impossible. (His wife does not do so. She seldom tries.)

At present, there is no fixed method of writing ASL. Rome has always required a written form, inventing one if needed, for liturgical and paraliturgical prayer.
Click to expand...
which languages have they done that for( out of curosity, im not doubting you)
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Montalo said:
I have not saw this done, but i was in discussion with a friend, and it lead me to think.

Would a Mass signed in American Sign Language(ASL) be valid?

Assuming he signed a perfect translation from the english(or latin, for that matter), and nothing else that could possible invalidate said Mass was present?
Click to expand...
yes assuming the priest is also reading from the actual sacramentary the actual words.

it is nearly impossible, the priests and those who assist with this ministry tell me, for the priest himself to do both, so he almost always has an ASL translator assisting. The translator is not just working blind from what he hears but is already prepared and knows the prayers etc. Here, two translators alternate during one Mass, the one for the liturgy of the word has already prepared the readings, again, and is not just doing it ad hoc.

the reason ASL alone is not a licit language for Mass is that it does not translate word for word but in tropes of meaning and context. That is why it is also necessary in catechising the deaf that they have access to the written texts as well. If you talk to an actual ASL speaker they can explain it better.

If you have seen ASL used at Mass almost certainly you have seen a translator, rarely the priest himself, as an adjunct, not a replacement, for priest reciting the actual words from the sacramentary, lectionary etc.
 
ASL Masses I’ve seen are usually done with a priest who does the Mass regularly, and a lay person doing the ASL translation who is either on the lectern or is just at the foot of the steps going up to the sanctuary, but off to the side. And usually those who need to follow the Mass through sign language will be seated near this translator.
 
Interpreter. The correct designator for someone signing spoken word in ASL and then voicing ASL is: Interpreter. Translator is not correct.
 
My brother is deaf and he explains the ASL like this:

The sentence, ‘I am going to the store’, is interpreted in ASL as (roughly), ‘I go store’.

In that same vein, the phrase, ‘This is my body’ or ‘This is my blood’, could interpreted as,
‘my body’ and ‘my blood’ (again, roughly speaking). To use any other phrase puts the validity of the consecration into question.

My brother currently does not attend Mass because he doesn’t really get anything from (in his mind). He has no objection to going and will go on major holidays if my mother asks. Is wife is not Catholic and she prefers not to go, so he has no motivation there. I think if we were able to find a Mass that he could attend and understand better, we can get him back to attending Mass weekly.
 
MusicMan said:
Interpreter. The correct designator for someone signing spoken word in ASL and then voicing ASL is: Interpreter. Translator is not correct.
Click to expand...
in·ter·pret·er (n-tûrpr-tr)
n. 1. One who translates orally from one language into another.

trans·late   
[trans-leyt, tranz-, trans-leyt, tranz-]
to explain in terms that can be more easily understood; interpret.

🤷🤷🤷
 
ConstantineTG said:
in·ter·pret·er (n-tûrpr-tr)
n. 1. One who translates orally from one language into another.

trans·late   
[trans-leyt, tranz-, trans-leyt, tranz-]
to explain in terms that can be more easily understood; interpret.

🤷🤷🤷
Click to expand...
ASL is English. The purpose of sign is to make the native language easier to understand for someone who cannot hear the words.
 
ConstantineTG said:
in·ter·pret·er (n-tûrpr-tr)
n. 1. One who translates orally from one language into another.

trans·late   
[trans-leyt, tranz-, trans-leyt, tranz-]
to explain in terms that can be more easily understood; interpret.

🤷🤷🤷
Click to expand...
[edited] but Deaf Culture, as well as the profession itself has uses the word Interpreter as the title for someone who interprets spoken English into ASL and voices ASL.

Much like emHC is the correct designator for a lay person who is distributing communion, Interpreter is the correct title for a person interpreting speech into ASL.

Translator is not the correct term, and insisting that it should be allowed is quite offensive within the profession and the Culture it serves.
 
MusicMan said:
Translator is not the correct term, and insisting that it should be allowed is quite offensive within the profession and the Culture it serves.
Click to expand...
And here is PC gone wrong in todays world. Translator is an offensive term. Really? I don’t find it offensive if someone calls me IT guy, IT professional, high tech professional, computer worker, etc. Its all the same!
 
No it isn’t. One is the proper title for something. The other is not.

My real name is Robert. I go by Rob. I don’t go by Bob. Once you know that I go by Rob, continuing to call me Bob is rude and offensive.

It’s that simple. Interpreter is the correct title. Translator is not. Please use the correct one. To deliberately choose not to, or to argue the point, is likewise rude and offensive.
 
Montalo said:
which languages have they done that for( out of curosity, im not doubting you)
Click to expand...
Church Slavonic (in the 800’s)
Yupic/Yupiq/Yupik (20th C)
Inupiaq (20th C)

Note that both Yupic and Inupiaq had this done twice… once by Catholics (20th C) and once by Orthodox (19th C)… using the latin and cyrillic alphabets, respectively. Use of Yupic has been permitted in limited use in the Roman Catholic liturgy since the 1940’s, perhaps earlier, as part of mission life in Alaska. (The Orthodox had a translation by the 1880’s of the whole liturgical cycle.)
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top