Diabled Priest

[Brain]

I went to a meeting for semnarians and those who would like to be, and one deacon i was eating dinner with said that he had several deaf classmates. how can a priest function without his voice or hearing? is ASL allowed in sacramental rites?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Brain:

I went to a meeting for semnarians and those who would like to be, and one deacon i was eating dinner with said that he had several deaf classmates. how can a priest function without his voice or hearing? is ASL allowed in sacramental rites?

I have had the same question, can a deaf or dumb (ie cant speak) man become a priest?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Brain:

I went to a meeting for semnarians and those who would like to be, and one deacon i was eating dinner with said that he had several deaf classmates. how can a priest function without his voice or hearing? is ASL allowed in sacramental rites?

Generally speaking no, not without special permission from their Bishop. A priest who looses his hearing can continue to celebrate Mass as can a priest who looses his voice. In the latter case he must mouth the words and not only think them. I knew of a priest who was loosing his hearing and his eyesight and continued to celebrate public Masses by listening to a small cassette tape of the Mass and repeating the words from the tape since he could not see the sacramentary very well.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

The answer is clearly yes! I know of two deaf priests in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles (one is currently the pastor of Holy Angels Church) – although since ordination both have had cochlear implants and can hear again (both lost their hearing after they could speak, but before they were ordained). One of my students became the first deaf deacon west of the Mississippi when he was ordained on 1993.

There is (or was) a deaf deacon in Rochester, and there are a couple of deaf priests in other parts of the country.

Although I’m hearing (30% hearing loss in both ears) I worked for 10 years as the diocsean director of religious education for deaf adults and had the pleasure of seeing many clergy participate in the NCOD (National Catholic Office of the Deaf).

BTW, we do not use “dumb” to indicate one cannot speak since that word carries other connotation – it originally meant someone who was too stupid to speak, and all deaf people were considered stupid. The Deaf Community prefers the term “mute” which literally means to not produce sound. Note that not all deaf people are mute. Many can speak; especially those who are post-lingually deaf.

One last comment: the Diocese of Orange in California and the Arcdhdiocese of Los Angeles worked toghether to develop a “Mass for the Deaf” that took into account the changes necessary for the deaf to fully participate. I’m not sure that is still in existence since I haven’t been active in the deaf community for about 15 years now.

Deacon Ed

 

[aurora77]

I know of one priest who has lost most of his eyesight and a priest who is now completely deaf. The deaf priest can speak clearly, so he says Mass just like any other priest. It’s also wonderful–as he says a lot of the prayers, he’ll also sign them. Very, very cool. The Church would be missing out on a lot if they didn’t let him be a priest–he’s a great homilist and I’ve learned much from him.

 

[mittens_mom]

We have regular ASL(American Sign Language) Masses. It is truly beautiful. I feel like I am praying twice when I sign the prayers. The Mass is said in ASL and there is an interperter who voices the English version.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

mittens'mom:

We have regular ASL(American Sign Language) Masses. It is truly beautiful. I feel like I am praying twice when I sign the prayers. The Mass is said in ASL and there is an interperter who voices the English version.

This concerns me a bit. Not that Mass should nto be signed. But that it reverses the norm. Mass is intended to be spoken, even if wispered. A Mass “said” by a priest who does not speak the words intended to be spoken by the priest, when he is able would be possibly illicit. A Mass where a priest does not move his lips or “mouth” the prayers intended to be spoken by the priest could possibly be invalid.

On the other hand no one is to speak the words intended to be spoken by the priest, even when the priest is incapable of speaking them.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Br. Rich SFO:

This concerns me a bit. Not that Mass should nto be signed. But that it reverses the norm. Mass is intended to be spoken, even if wispered. A Mass “said” by a priest who does not speak the words intended to be spoken by the priest, when he is able would be possibly illicit. A Mass where a priest does not move his lips or “mouth” the prayers intended to be spoken by the priest could possibly be invalid.

On the other hand no one is to speak the words intended to be spoken by the priest, even when the priest is incapable of speaking them.

Br. Rich, this question was raised in my diocese and the answer is that the priest does not have to “speak” the words, just communicate them – and sign language is a perfectly acceptable medium of communication.

Deacon Ed

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Deacon Ed:

Br. Rich, this question was raised in my diocese and the answer is that the priest does not have to “speak” the words, just communicate them – and sign language is a perfectly acceptable medium of communication.

Deacon Ed

My greater concern is someone else speaking the words for the priest who is signing them. Did the Bishop answer this in your diocese or someone else? The source I’m recalling is a text used to teach the celebration of the Mass prior to 1965.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Br. Rich SFO:

My greater concern is someone else speaking the words for the priest who is signing them. Did the Bishop answer this in your diocese or someone else? The source I’m recalling is a text used to teach the celebration of the Mass prior to 1965.

Br. Rich – yes, this was addressed. Since the priest is still “saying” the words, the interpreter is simply “translating” the words and not the one “saying them.”

The answer came from the bishop who, as the official liturgist in the diocese had the power and authority to do so.

Deacon Ed

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Deacon Ed:

Br. Rich – yes, this was addressed. Since the priest is still “saying” the words, the interpreter is simply “translating” the words and not the one “saying them.”

The answer came from the bishop who, as the official liturgist in the diocese had the power and authority to do so.

Deacon Ed

That is interesting. That is why I asked. I wondered if the Bishop or if it was someone else who simply liked the idea. It didn’t seem to be a rule since the text didn’t reference any specific Church document but seemed more a principle that I guess evaporated with the N.O.