Deaf Priest?

[TheMc]

I recently hear about a deaf man who was ordained, and at his ordination, he signed his “part” of the eucharistic prayer. That brought up the question in my mind: I know that the sacraments can be preformed in many different languages, latin, english, spanish, french, etc, but is it valid when it is “signed”?

If not, I wonder if he mutters the words under his breath, and signs them (since the words would be unintelligible to us, since he is deaf).

Personally, ordaining a deaf man to the priesthood doesn’t seem like the brightest idea to me, but it’s a done deal now.

Thoughts?

 

[SonCatcher]

I understand that sign language flows through the mind of a deaf person in the same way spoken language flows through the mind of a hearing person, with the exception of the organ through which the word was contacted (i.e. eye vs ear).

Since you brought it up, I ran a quick search and found not only a deaf priest but an entire deaf parish.

 

[cradlecatholic5]

Personally, ordaining a deaf man to the priesthood doesn’t seem like the brightest idea to me, but it’s a done deal now.

Why not?

He must have been “called” and looks like John found there is a need.

 

[karow]

Obviously, I can’t speak with authority as to the validity of Masses said in ASL, but here’s a story of a recently-retired priest who’s been ministering and saying Masses for Deaf communities since the 1950s:

catholiccourier.com/in-depth/previous-topics/priest-serves-the-deaf-hearing/

Here are the first few paragraphs of the story:

*"Those who hear – as well those who don’t – have benefited from the ministry of Father Thomas M. Erdle.

Father Erdle, pastor of St. Mark Parish, began ministering to Deaf Catholics even before being ordained in 1955. He has served as chaplain at two area educational institutions for the Deaf, and in 1981 became founding pastor of St. Mary’s Church of the Deaf, now known as Emmanuel Church of the Deaf, currently located at Our Lady of Good Counsel Church in Rochester.

The priest also has served Deaf people at the national and international levels. In the 1970s, he was instrumental in founding the National Catholic Office for the Deaf in Washington, D.C., and also served as a chaplain for the International Deaf Catholic Association."*

The website for the International Deaf Catholic Association is icda-us.org/. I’m sure they are well equipped to answer any questions about Masses said in ASL or other signed languages. Another website that may be use is deafcatholic.org/, which is the Deaf Apostolate of the Archdiocese of Boston.

Here is a blog maintained by a priest who ministers to the Deaf: frmd.org/. Most of his blog is actually vlogs, which makes sense because he is ministering to folks in ASL after all, but he might also be willing to address your questions and concerns.

Finally, I’ll leave you with this image. It’s a crucifix with Christ signing “I love you” in ASL.
cardinalseansblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/crucifix.png

Happy researching.

 

[achmafooma]

That brought up the question in my mind: I know that the sacraments can be preformed in many different languages, latin, english, spanish, french, etc, but is it valid when it is “signed”?

I don’t know the official teaching on the matter, but as I understand it Sign Language is just a language like any other. I don’t see why it would invalidate anything. Of course, a Priest needs to be able to communicate with his flock, so he would either need to be assigned to a deaf Parish (like the one SonCatcher found) or would need to be able to communicate well through reading lips and speaking.

The only possible problem I can think of if he is assigned to a non-deaf Parish is that he would be unable to hear anonymous Confessions. Of course, face-to-face would still be doable (assuming he can read lips).

All-in-all though, I don’t see any problem with it.

 

[Sancta_Caecilia]

I recently hear about a deaf man who was ordained, and at his ordination, he signed his “part” of the eucharistic prayer. That brought up the question in my mind: I know that the sacraments can be preformed in many different languages, latin, english, spanish, french, etc, but is it valid when it is “signed”?

If not, I wonder if he mutters the words under his breath, and signs them (since the words would be unintelligible to us, since he is deaf).

Personally, ordaining a deaf man to the priesthood doesn’t seem like the brightest idea to me, but it’s a done deal now.

Thoughts?

Im sure he was called to the priesthood for a reason and after all- god made some people deaf for a reason!. I am sure it is valid- it is not a deliberate action- its just the way he is and the best way to deal with it. In terms of it being a good idea…i wonder how he hears confession…

 

[MaryAnne77]

As the mother of a deaf son, I’d certainly hope The Church would respect his call to the priesthood, if he had one. I have to say, I’m hurt and frustrated by the idea that using sign language might invalidate a sacrament. Are you kidding me? ASL is a language just like English, French, German, Spanish. It is a very effective, clear and quite beautiful language, actually.

I’m also interested, MC, in what you mean by the following:

If not, I wonder if he mutters the words under his breath, and signs them (since the words would be unintelligible to us, since he is deaf).

Why would the words be unintelligible to you? Because you, personally, haven’t taken the time to learn sign language? Or because you mistakenly believe that no deaf person can have intelligible speech? Please elaborate for us.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Yes it is valid. The Priest can say the words an breathe on the Host or Wine at the appropriate time.

In my diocese, we have a seminarian who is blind. He will make a terrific priest.

Handicaps do NOT make people any less of a person. It is almost always OTHERS that limit them. Just as YOU are attempting to limit this man, because he can not speak in a language you understand.

 

[Rascalking]

Personally, ordaining a deaf man to the priesthood doesn’t seem like the brightest idea to me, but it’s a done deal now.

?

1. Your comment is offensive to those who are deaf or hard of hearing.
2. With the priest shortage, should we be worried about this? Shouldn’t we be happy that someone is willing to become a priest?

 

[Sancta_Caecilia]

I recently hear about a deaf man who was ordained, and at his ordination, he signed his “part” of the eucharistic prayer. That brought up the question in my mind: I know that the sacraments can be preformed in many different languages, latin, english, spanish, french, etc, but is it valid when it is “signed”?

If not, I wonder if he mutters the words under his breath, and signs them (since the words would be unintelligible to us, since he is deaf).

Personally, ordaining a deaf man to the priesthood doesn’t seem like the brightest idea to me, but it’s a done deal now.

Thoughts?

I think people are starting to take this out of context. This was a simple enquiry that i dont believe was meant to be inoffensive, coming from someone who obviously is not as educated in catholic law as some. I dont believe any offense was intended and that a better choice of word other than ‘unintelligible’ would have prevented this.

 

[SanctaMommy]

I think that MC might be of greatly advanced age. We all know how the elderly can get a little crochety! Give him a break, he probably didn’t realize how very rude he was being. Let’s assume good intent!

 

[dans0622]

The question of the validity of a Sacrament when the essential words are not vocalized is interesting. For many years, it was considered necessary that the words be spoken, not signed, not written, not just moving the lips with no sound at all. As we know, a valid Sacrament requires form and matter. It was thought that the “form,” as I said, had to be vocalized. Many commentaries on Sacramental theology and law would have said that only the spoken word is a valid expression of the form. There was never an official pronouncement to this effect, however.

It wasn’t until around the end of 1965 that the Church allowed sign language to be used in the entirety of celebrating Sacraments. I would think that it will always be required that there be a concurrent communication of the form of the Sacrament: it does not matter what form that communication takes. If the Church approves the language in question, it’s valid.

Dr. Ed Peters published an article on this subject a couple years ago. It was very informative. It’s not available anywhere online but he has some comments on his website about this issue (he has a daughter who is deaf).

Dan

 

[TheMc]

The question of the validity of a Sacrament when the essential words are not vocalized is interesting. For many years, it was considered necessary that the words be spoken, not signed, not written, not just moving the lips with no sound at all. As we know, a valid Sacrament requires form and matter. It was thought that the “form,” as I said, had to be vocalized. Many commentaries on Sacramental theology and law would have said that only the spoken word is a valid expression of the form. There was never an official pronouncement to this effect, however.

It wasn’t until around the end of 1965 that the Church allowed sign language to be used in the entirety of celebrating Sacraments. I would think that it will always be required that there be a concurrent communication of the form of the Sacrament: it does not matter what form that communication takes. If the Church approves the language in question, it’s valid.

Dr. Ed Peters published an article on this subject a couple years ago. It was very informative. It’s not available anywhere online but he has some comments on his website about this issue (he has a daughter who is deaf).

Dan

Thank you dan. That’s the kind of discussion I was looking for, not slamming me because I hate deaf people. Very interesting. I’ll check out for stuff by Ed Peters.

 

[Monkey1976]

I don’t know the official teaching on the matter, but as I understand it Sign Language is just a language like any other. I don’t see why it would invalidate anything. Of course, a Priest needs to be able to communicate with his flock, so he would either need to be assigned to a deaf Parish (like the one SonCatcher found) or would need to be able to communicate well through reading lips and speaking.

The only possible problem I can think of if he is assigned to a non-deaf Parish is that he would be unable to hear anonymous Confessions. Of course, face-to-face would still be doable (assuming he can read lips).

All-in-all though, I don’t see any problem with it.

Actually, Confession would not be an issue at all. I’m friends with some of the premier Catholic interpreters for the archdiocese here, and the rule is simple: If an interpreter is needed for either the Confessor or the one confessing, then the interpreter is bound to honor the seal of the confessional in exactly the same manner as the Confessor with the same protection under civil law, and the same penalties under canon law if they were to break the seal.

 

[Mark1970]

I recently hear about a deaf man who was ordained, and at his ordination, he signed his “part” of the eucharistic prayer. That brought up the question in my mind: I know that the sacraments can be preformed in many different languages, latin, english, spanish, french, etc, but is it valid when it is “signed”?

If not, I wonder if he mutters the words under his breath, and signs them (since the words would be unintelligible to us, since he is deaf).

Personally, ordaining a deaf man to the priesthood doesn’t seem like the brightest idea to me, but it’s a done deal now.

Thoughts?

As a matter of interest, in the Extraordinary form, the rubrics require the consecration, and the entire Canon/Eucharistic Prayer to be in the “silent voice”, meaning loudly enough for the priest to hear himself but not loudly enough to be heard by anybody else. So this supposes it isn’t necessary for the congregatin to “hear” what is being said, but also that the priest manages to strike the balance between loud enough to hear himself but not loud enough for the congregation to hear (i.e. a whisper).

A deaf priest may not be able to do this, and I remember reading that if a priest went deaf after ordination he had to get a dispensation to celebrate Mass, as he couldn’t follow the rubrics. Attitudes wo following the rubrics were a lot stronger then than they are now! Also, a deaf man may not have been ordained. This sounds harsh now, but at the time, because a priest acts in persona Christi, the church didn’t want priests to be the object of mockery. A priest with a disabilty may have been made fun of when people weren’t as accepting of disability, and the church didn’t want priests to be exposed to this.

 

[5Loaves]

Actually, Confession would not be an issue at all. I’m friends with some of the premier Catholic interpreters for the archdiocese here, and the rule is simple: If an interpreter is needed for either the Confessor or the one confessing, then the interpreter is bound to honor the seal of the confessional in exactly the same manner as the Confessor with the same protection under civil law, and the same penalties under canon law if they were to break the seal.

I’m an interpreter and what you say is quite correct. And deaf people are quite used to writing notes back and forth and tho that may seem odd if you aren’t used to it that would be fine for confession once you’re used to it. Sometimes people sit at a computer and take turns typing as another means of communication when they don’t want, or can’t get, a qualified interpreter.

I’ve had confession a number of times with our local deaf priest, in ASL. He’s a wonderful spiritual father. I would go to him more often but it’s too hard to coordinate our schedules.

The deaf parish in SF is served by two deaf priests, primarily Fr. Paul Zirimenya, with Fr. Ghislain focusing on adult formation. About half the parish is hearing, largely Japanese. I doubt any hearing Japanese have confession with Fr. Paul. They have Mass in Japanese once a month and probably use that priest for their confessions, or go to another near by hearing parish for confession. The East Bay deaf community is served by a hearing Franciscan priest who signs and speaks at the same time during the Mass.

There is no formally approved translation of the OF or EF of the Mass in ASL so it is an interesting question about the words of institution. (The Franciscan is also a canon lawyer and would know exactly the answer about what is required in this situation for validity. We actually talked about it in canon law class but that’s several years ago and I don’t remember precisely what he said.)

My daughter received all her sacraments from Fr. Tom Coughlin who later founded a new order the Dominican Missionaries for the Deaf Apostolate now located in San Antonio. He was apparently just awarded a Doctorate in Ministry, honoris causa from Catholic Theological Union, I learned on Facebook today. Wonderful, wonderful priest (and nurse!)!

Our newest Deaf priest Fr. Christopher Klusman was ordained a priest of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee on May 21.

I’ve been blest to receive the Holy Eucharist in Mass celebrated by Fr Cyril Axelrod, a wonderful deaf-blind priest who resides in the UK.

BTW the Archdiocese of Washington has an excellent set of training videos on line for ASL interpreters for the new translation of the Roman Missal, and workshops on that topic are happening across the country.

 

[5Loaves]

Dr. Ed Peters published an article on this subject a couple years ago. It was very informative. It’s not available anywhere online but he has some comments on his website about this issue (he has a daughter who is deaf).

I see this piece by Dr. Ed Peters but I’m not catching anything in it about the question of what is required for the words of institution to be licit. Maybe you meant something else he refers to:

(see private reply of 10 December 1965, Canon Law Digest VI: 552-553; Bishops’ Commission on the Liturgical Apostolate, Newsletter 2:4 (April 1966) 30-31).

 

[MarkThompson]

As a matter of interest, in the Extraordinary form, the rubrics require the consecration, and the entire Canon/Eucharistic Prayer to be in the “silent voice”, meaning loudly enough for the priest to hear himself but not loudly enough to be heard by anybody else. So this supposes it isn’t necessary for the congregatin to “hear” what is being said, but also that the priest manages to strike the balance between loud enough to hear himself but not loud enough for the congregation to hear (i.e. a whisper).

Interestingly, in 1435 the Council of Basel abolished the abuse whereby the priest spoke the secret prayers so quietly that the people standing around could not hear them (“per secretas orationes ita sumbissa voce dicitur, quod a circumstantibus audiri non potest”).

A deaf priest may not be able to do this, and I remember reading that if a priest went deaf after ordination he had to get a dispensation to celebrate Mass, as he couldn’t follow the rubrics. Attitudes wo following the rubrics were a lot stronger then than they are now! Also, a deaf man may not have been ordained. This sounds harsh now, but at the time, because a priest acts in persona Christi, the church didn’t want priests to be the object of mockery. A priest with a disabilty may have been made fun of when people weren’t as accepting of disability, and the church didn’t want priests to be exposed to this.

Yes, I have previously remarked that traditional regulations of the Mass certainly did not put the Church in a position to win any awards from handicap-advocacy groups.

 

[Mark1970]

Interestingly, in 1435 the Council of Basel abolished the abuse whereby the priest spoke the secret prayers so quietly that the people standing around could not hear them (“per secretas orationes ita sumbissa voce dicitur, quod a circumstantibus audiri non potest”)…

Acording to O’Connell’s book, “The Celebration of Mass” (the post-1961 addition) there used to be 3 “voices” at an EF Mass (up to 1960). The first was the “loud voice”, which could be heard by anyone reasonably close to the altar. The median voice was audible to only those near the priest, and the “silent voice” was the one referred to above - a whisper, audible only to the priest himself. According to O’Connell, the median voice was removed from Low Mass in 1960, but I think it was retained in Sung Masses for e.g. the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, a dialogue between priest and ministers while the Introit was sung. That just left the loud and silent voices for use at Low Mass.

Something I once hear, although I’ve never been able to substantiate it, is that a priest had to say the words of the consecration loud enough to be heard so that e.g. that altar server acted as a “witness” to the consecration, i.e. could say that the priest had definitely consecrated because he’d heard the priest. Has anybody else heard this?

 

[JLASchofield]

Here is the Eucharistic Prayer for the Deaf authorised by the Bishops of England and Wales in 1992:

liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/Rites/DeafEP.pdf

The rubrics require that the celebrant says and signs the words simultaneously, so we can assume the bishops are erring on the side of caution.

I’m not sure whether the change to the preface dialogue is intentional.