For most of her 67 years, Mary Lomastro could not fully understand the Roman Catholic Mass that she attended each Sunday.
Ms. Lomastro, of Coventry, R.I., is deaf. She attended weekly services at her home parish, but could not follow the Mass beyond what was printed in the missalette.
That all changed last summer, when the Diocese of Providence became one of the few in the country to have a deaf priest celebrate a Mass in American Sign Language, with a verbal interpreter.
The priest, the Rev. Joseph Bruce, says Mass at St. Ann’s Church in Providence and at other parishes throughout Rhode Island, where 60 percent of residents are Catholic, the highest percentage of any state.
"Attending Mass with a deaf priest who uses sign language is more inspiring than an interpreted Mass," Ms. Lomastro, who now volunteers as a lector at the deaf Mass, wrote in an e-mail message. "When Father Bruce signs, it is coming from his inner self."
Father Bruce is one of seven deaf priests ministering in the United States, said the Rev. Thomas Coughlin, head of the Dominican Missionaries for the Deaf Apostolate in Hayward, Calif. Four deaf seminarians are studying to be priests, the most ever at one time, according to the National Catholic Office for the Deaf.
The four seminarians, along with an increase in lay participation, show signs of growth in a small Catholic community that has long struggled with its identity.
I have been to some Masses in my diocese where they had a interpreter doing sign, though not one with the priest doing ASL. This article did make me wonder about the use of ASL in the Mass by the priest and I found a helpful article by Jimmy Akin for This Rock Magazine on the subject.
Q: Is it permissible to translate spontaneously into sign language what is being said at Masses for the deaf?
A: Yes. In 1965 the Concilium issued a reply which stated that it had considered whether it was fitting "1. That the readings should be communicated to the [deaf] people by means of signs; 2. that the deaf people should reply, in those parts pertaining to the congregation, by means of signs. It was [also] asked . . . (a) whether texts proffered by the celebrant could be at the same time spoken and signified with his hands; (b) whether in those texts that were said together by the celebrant and by the people, the people could follow the sign language of the celebrant, they themselves also using the sign language."
"With great willingness and kindness, the Holy Father has given his full approval to these suggestions and has said moreover that sign language could be used with and by deaf people throughout the liturgy, whenever it was judged to be pastorally desirable" (Documents on the Liturgy [DOL] 2119).
In 1966, the Holy See gave another reply: "Query: May sign language be used in the celebration of the liturgy for the deaf? Reply: Yes. For it is the only way for the deaf actually to take an active part in the liturgy" (DOL 296 note R1, Query 2).
Canonist Dr. Ed Peters on the subject notes that this permission was given just two days after the close of the council and offers some additional information on the subject in a reply to an article in Adoramus Bulletin.
Jimmy also answers the point I thought about while reading the NYT article in regards to the words of consecration.
One point that should be noted: Though permission has been given for the use of sign languages as liturgical languages, the Church has not established that sign language constitutes a valid method of administering the sacraments. Thus in its replies on using sign language, the Holy See has stated that the priest is to say the parts of the Mass particular to him (such as the words of consecration) both out loud and in sign.
There is also a Dominican Missionaries for the Deaf Apostolate that preaches in sign language. Of course the old joke goes is that they must be very popular for confession. On this point though the late (and great) Fr. Hardon answers a question on how does someone who is mute or deaf go to confession?
A mute or deaf person can go to confession in various ways. If he knows sign language, he can choose a confessor among priests who understand sign language. Or again a mute or deaf person can write out his sins, and either personally or through someone else ask the priest to read his written sins. Then the priest, in writing, may give the penitent such spiritual assistance and assign the penance in accordance with the sins confessed. Or still again, penitents can ask someone whom they totally trust, and to whom they have confided their sins, to go to confession for them. Of course the priest must be first both informed and willing to cooperate. If the priest cooperates, the assistant to the penitent may confess for the penitent; but of course this assistant is absolutely bound by the seal of confession. Finally, if the above options are simply not available, the person may receive absolution from a priest, provided two conditions are fulfilled: the penitent must really want to confess his sins, and secondly he will take the next opportunity to confess his sins by way of sign language, writing or through an assistant.
I never realized that there could be a sacrament by proxy where someone could go to confession for somebody in these unique circumstances with permission of the priest. Though of course the precedence is Jesus dying for our sins.
22 comments
I wouldn’t think of it as a sacrament by proxy, but rather as the third person acting as a kind of translator.
Maybe I misunderstood what Father Hardon said. A translator has always been an option in the confessional.
I’d be awful surprised to learn that someone could go to confession for another person. It’s my understanding that the priest would have to have some sort of proximity to the actual penitent for the sacrament to be valid. A translator would be fine. Staying at home while your translator runs down to the Church seems pretty iffy.
I think that every time I have heard about the option of a translator, it has always been in the context of the translator being there with you simultaneously in the confessional.
Wow! Something I know about on your blog! In my former life, I was an interpreter for the Deaf, and I interpreted Mass at my old parish (where they still have Mass interpreted weekly, as well as any parish missions, etc. that the Deaf parishioners are interested in going to). For Confession, an interpreter is allowed to go; he would be under the same restrictions about not revealing the content of the assignment. (Actually, the Code of Ethics demands that we not reveal the information that was given in an assignment. Imagine if you depended on someone to tell your doctor everything and vice versa – you would want a confidentiality clause for sure!)
For Mass, when I interpreted, I interpreted everything. Songs, prayers, consecration…I did it all. (It’s quite exhausting, actually.) When our new church was built, I interpreted the consecration Mass, where we had a gazillion priests (I counted, really), two bishops, and a cardinal (who read a message from John Paul II – can I tell you that I cried tears of joy that my hands gave the Holy Father’s words?).
I do miss interpreting Mass. I know that nothing beats the Real Presence, but I have to say that it became a part of how I worshipped the Lord during Mass. It was beautiful, and there were times when some celebrants spoke the Words of Consecration and I felt CHILLS. It’s very hard to describe. But I felt so honored to serve Him that way, to help His children, my friends, better celebrate the Holy Mass. And my interpreting was never better than when I was at Mass – I told people again and again that it was really God doing it. I only wanted Him to use me to reach people.
*sigh* I miss it so much. And the only Deaf person who might be a parishioner does not come to Mass and so our pastor will not offer interpreted Mass. (I offered to do it for free, knowing they cannot pay me as my old parish did.) I think it’s a vicious cycle. There are lots of people who just don’t go because they are so LOST; if it was interpreted, I think many would come back and word would spread.
I forgot something. This comment puzzles me.
One point that should be noted: Though permission has been given for the use of sign languages as liturgical languages, the Church has not established that sign language constitutes a valid method of administering the sacraments. Thus in its replies on using sign language, the Holy See has stated that the priest is to say the parts of the Mass particular to him (such as the words of consecration) both out loud and in sign.
Why? The Consecration is valid in any other language, is it not? Perhaps this is a case of the rule not catching up to the reality that ASL is a real language with syntax, grammar structure, etc. For ages, people thought that sign languages (and they are different in each country – even England’s is different than ours) were only broken forms of spoken languages or mimicry. Perhaps this is something that needs to be looked at again. (I am assuming here that it’s a matter of discipline, not doctrine.) After all, the Consecration is valid in English, Spanish, etc.
And I’m sure that Jesus speaks beautiful ASL. 😉
But Christine, many of us don’t find anything beautiful about ASL at all. As you know, it’s the equivelant of speaking in broken English with lots of slang – leaving many assumptions to be made by the recipient. Exact English, IMHO, should be the only signing used, at least in the sacramental parts (adjective sense, not the noun).
I sponsored a young deaf man into the Church and found his Confirmation ceremony to be quite scandalous and I think that was in part because some people tend to think that hearing impaired equates to mentally impaired, so they dumb things down to an extreme; also because ASL is terribly imprecise; and most importantly because whether because of heretical sentiments or by sheer stupidity, the priest changed words of the creed – the worse example being: “One Church of all believers”. I didn’t complain, because it wouldn’t have invalidated the sacrament, but I explained to the young man (who did know what it really says) why the creed says what it does and that what the priest had them say was improper and bad theology.
Of course, this is Detroit, so I shouldn’t have been shocked by any of it.
Rick, ASL is not broken English. It is a language all its own, just as Spanish is. (It’s actually rooted in French sign language, which accounts for its grammar being different than English.)
There are ways to legitimately translate from English to ASL, just as there are ways to legitimately translate from Latin to English. I would by no means wish to have invalid Sacraments or a mangling of the doctrines and beliefs of the Church. That would be scandalous! But everything we do in the Church is a translation from the original texts and languages. A signed exact English transliteration rather than a translation (there is a subtle difference between the two) might be necessary, but there are some people who wouldn’t understand that as well as ASL. Catechisis for the Deaf in ASL would help. Making sure that the interpreters are also Catholic helps, too. (That way you know that the person has an understanding of the faith enough that they can express it without mangling doctrine.)
You are right that some people still think “deaf and dumb” instead of just “Deaf.” But then those people need to be taught that it’s just not so.
By the way, if it makes you feel any better, the people I interpreted for at Mass insisted on exact English so that they did not lose the meaning of anything. They were very comfortable with English and wanted to be sure that nothing was changed from the priest’s words to my hands. Songs were different, though. I tended more towards straight ASL there. But, still, I must stress that ASL is a language all its own, not a bastardization of English. (Or of French, for that matter.) And, at times, I find it more precise than English. I can’t assume you don’t know ASL, Rick, but what you said shows ignorance on the subject, so I am not sure how much you do know about ASL.
Christine, I certainly am not very familiar with either form of sign language. I never had to rely on it enough and therefore I forget what little I know, so I end up using a combination of simple signs and lots of finger spelling.
I have read the history of ASL however and know that it was derived from sign developed in French. You may have a point about it being more of a transliteration, but the reality it is if you wrote out the words of what you signed in English it would read like broken English. In fact, when I read text written by someone who is hearing impaired I can tell who was taught Exact English and who was taught ASL. Invariably, he ASL person writes in broken English. You can call it a different language if you like, but it is NOT an accurate means of relating precise language written in English, and I think the folks you interpreted for are well aware of that too – that’s why they wanted you to use Exact English in the first place.
😉
Why would someone go to confession using a translator? That’s just wrong and totally unecessary.
My daughter and her boyfriend are “deaf”. They write everything down and the priest responds by writing everything down. Yes, they have to go face-to-face and leave the door open (nobody can hear them, anyway), but they don’t have to have someone else know their sins in order to confess them. The very idea makes me angry.
A priest has to sometimes go a little out of the norm for some people, but it’s mostly at the inconvience of the person who neees it.
ASL sign language is another matter entirely that will just piss me off further, so I shall stop now. 🙂
People who were taught ASL and not Exact English are for the most part, illiterate. Sorry if that offends, but it wouldn’t offend anybody who was taught ASL because they wouldn’t be able to read this comment. Seriously.
BTW, Christine. Concerning the “deaf and dumb” thing, unfortunately I have found that many of the worst offenders are people who are involved in the deaf community and would agree with us that deaf doesn’t equal dumb – yet they betray themseleves by behaving contrary to it.
Typically they do so by being “accomodating” to such an extreme that it becomes embarassing or offensive to the HI person and those around them. That’s been the experience of myself and the deaf people I associate with.
Rick writes: “…the reality it is if you wrote out the words of what you signed in English it would read like broken English.”
It “would read like broken English” because you have not, in fact, translated it. You’ve just written down the English vocabulary words that correspond roughly to the signs.
It’s the same as hearing “Hoc est enim corpus meum” and writing down “This is truly body my.” Gosh, translating Latin results in broken English! Latin must be completely unsuitable as a liturgical language!
ASL is a true gestural language with its own syntax that is capable of great subtlety. Unfortunately there has been a political struggle with the Deaf community and the deaf educator/parent community over ASL for more than a century. It is disappointling to see it carry over into the Church.
Well, people taught with ASL showing little English skills results from teaching, not from lack of language skills. They are usually not learning English as a second language (like a basic English course). They usually wind up learning pidgin instead (a poor middle-ground). Certainly, ASL signs written in English look like broken English. It doesn’t mean that ASL isn’t precise or cannot convey complicated, nuanced, or even abstract ideas. (Look at Engrish.com – no one would say that these bad translations means that Japanese or Chinese are not real languages.) Deaf education is not good any more, though it used to be better. It’s hard to say how to fix it, but there used to be people coming out of Deaf schools (residential in nature) who were fluent in ASL and also in English (I know a few). When I was in college getting my Deaf ed. degree, we had countless classes in which we’d discuss how we were supposed to improve things. No one seemed to have the answer, though. But, again, poor English skills show only that the student was never shown that, yes, in ASL you might sign “TOMORROW-STORE-ME-GO”, but in English, we have to do it differently, and we write “Tomorrow, I will go to the store.”
And, Rhonda, I’m not Deaf, but I do know plenty of Deaf people, fluent in ASL, who would be highly offended by that comment. Really. Sadly, most people’s experience with the Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing community (D/HH for brevity’s sake) is limited to people begging in airports. Personally, I tell those people off. They give D/HH people a bad name! Plenty of them get through college, obtain higher degrees, etc. and never need to beg for money. Like I said, I knew lots of people (and interpreted for them sometimes) who were Deaf, taught in ASL, and were also fluent in English (though did not speak it). One man I knew had a PhD. Another man I knew was fluent in both Russian and American Sign Languages, and was working towards a Master’s Degree in criminology. I knew another family with two Deaf parents (highly successful in business). I think it mainly takes more exposure to that community to come across more people like that.
Incidentally, how we teach English to the D/HH might also be a bit off. When most teachers at the residential schools were also Deaf, things were taught differently. (I saw a difference between the D/HH teachers and the hearing teachers at the residential school where I did practicum.) Now that most teachers for D/HH are hearing, perhaps we are approaching it wrongly. Why do I say that? Because ASL is processed in a completely different part of the brain than English is.
I can’t argue with one thing, Rick and Rhonda. ASL on paper is rotten-looking. But it’s not meant to be a written language the way spoken languages have become written languages. It’s really hard to write on paper in ASL without lots of pictures. 😉 But, again, it doesn’t mean that ASL is not a real language. It just means it’s not written.
Oh, and one other thing. I also have known D/HH people who play up the “poor, poor Deafie me” stuff to get out of doing what they are supposed to do. I won’t divulge any more than than when I was an interpreter, I did see people take advantage of hearing people who didn’t know better by playing up their “I’m Deaf and dumb” routine. It pissed me off, and it also pisses off Deaf people who would rather be judged on their real abilities rather than the broken view some people have of them.
Christine:
My daughter was taught EE from day one. She and every child in her pre-school for the HI (all taught EE only) went on to become excellent students who didn’t struggle. My own daughter was two grades ahead in reading, which is great for a hearing child but extraordinary for a HI child. She can write and be understood. She also has perfect speech, but I credit God for that.
We then came here where all the children were taught ASL. They all struggle and have a hard time communicating with hearing people if they have to rely on writing something down. They simply can’t spell or write well enough and their syntax is nonsensical.
Why on earth would anybody teach their deaf child a sign language that promotes illiteracy and makes them more dependent?
We were taught to speak to our deaf children the way we speak to anybody else. And to write the same way. My daughter and her boyfriend (who was also taught EE) have absolutely no problems with communicating with hearing people. ALL of their ASL-using friends do.
Your PhD friend got where he is in spite of ASL, in my opinion.
I wanted to ask you about your commment on how ASL is processed in a different part of the brain than english is. Could you elaborate on that and why you think that’s significant?
🙂
Sator,
Your example of the syntax difference between Latin and English is prudent, but I believe it goes to my point. The English translation of the liturgy (from the official Latin) is horrific and as a result says some things which are incorrect (i.e. “et cum spiritu tuo” means “and with thy (your) spirit”). This is no secret, but for better or worse that is what has been officially approved so far.
If you read my initial comment you would see that I stated that exact English should be used at least in the most important parts. Precision is important and the text shouldn’t be tampered with, which is exactly what is done when translating in ASL. As you know, dropping a word or replacing a word, no matter how well intentioned, runs the risk of rendering a different meaning, especially when dealing with theological nuances.
Christine,
Maybe if HI kids were taught English along side ASL we would see different results, but frankly, I have never seen that happen. It seems to me the reality is that ASL is taught as a way to sign English, and ASL-only advocates are quite comfortable with that. … and I see Rhonda just replied and addressed some of what I was going to add…
Rick, you stated that ASL is “NOT an accurate means of relating precise language written in English.” My analogy seems to have missed the mark, so let me say it another way.
Whether or not ASL is an “accurate means of relating precise language written in English” depends entirely on the ability of the person(s) translating — just as it does in Latin, or any other language.
You say that you are not familiar (let alone fluent) with ASL, then condemn its use in liturgy because YOU are not able to translate well between ASL and English. Personally, I’m unable to hear the tonal distinctions that are so important in Chinese speech, but I understand quite a few people are able to do so (and some of them are even fluent in English, too…).
My nephew has been profoundly deaf since birth. His parents are “lapsed” Catholics, so as his baptismal sponsor, I have worked hard to prepare him for the sacraments. I am here to tell you that the precise meaning of the mass can be expressed in ASL just as well (or as poorly) as in English, or Latin.
Choosing how to raise and communicate with a deaf child is not easy– no matter what they choose, parents often feel under attack. You’ve made a choice of the best fit for your daughter, as well as raising her in the faith, and I honor that. But please don’t impose the template of your experience on the rest of the universal Church.
ASL is processed in a part of the brain that processes sight, while English is processed elsewhere. If English is approached the way ASL is (visually), it gets stored differently. (I know I’m not explaining that really well.)
I agree that English and ASL ought to be taught in tandem, and that was one thing that we were taught in college. Show them BOTH. ASL is the “native” language of generational Deaf families (as in one generation after another is Deaf). Most D/HH people are born to hearing parents, though (90%). Another theory, however, is that it isn’t ASL/SEE (or EE)/oral only that makes a difference, but the acceptance of the parents of their child as well as their involvement. (Incidentally, it’s that way with hearing children, as well. The more involved the parents, the better they tend to do in school.)
I have seen both PhD’s and Master’s holding D/HH and those who are struggling with remedial college courses (though most of those who struggled there did so because they did not apply themselves). I have also seen adult D/HH who grew up with ASL who have horrible English skills. But knowing that it is possible to have both (ASL and English) successfully, I have to say that it’s a matter of poor education. Really, D/HH education has been tinkered with much more than regular education. At first, signing was permitted. Then, no signing! Oral only. (Try THAT with someone with a heavy mustache or beard! Father Groeschell’s order would be really tough on that!) Then it was the Rochester Method (all fingerspelling, all the time). Then SEE, which did not cut down on the children using ASL in the dorms, where RA’s were typically Deaf adults. But when pulled out of the residential schools and mainstreamed (sometimes when they should have been in self-contained classrooms), some kids just get lost completely. So many skillsets must be learned at once and some of them are just assumed to be known. (We never taught the kids at the elementary school how to use the interpreters provided. Usually, we ‘terps would do it on the fly.)
It’s hard to say how to fix it, because there are so many variables that feed into the problem. But we can’t discount the validity of ASL being a language just because people who use it have bad English grammar. They ARE two different languages. And that is why there is a problem, right?
Oh, and with the interpreting aspect. I agree that important parts need to be interpreted with the greatest care. That is part of why our parish had only Catholic interpreters and why, in spite of me not being the best interpreter, I was the one who interpreted the Catholic wedding of my friend. I understood the Mass and would not inadvertantly change the meaning of anything. When in doubt, even if the “client” preferred the ASL, I would drop into English, or as close as I could get, so that meaning was NOT different. It was EXTREMELY important to me to have that right.
Rick and Rhonda, I think we are agreeing more than we are disagreeing.
Indeed Christine, I think we both recognize that there is a problem concerning English and ASL. I suppose if more effort was made to teach kids English as a second language things might be different, but as it stands we recognize a vast difference between the English skills of deaf kids who were taught EE vs ASL. I should also note (though you’re obviously aware of it) that it is not just Rick and Rhonda in our own little world. We have discussed this very subject with a number of educators and interpreters, and the consensus is the same. The HI people we have talked to seem to fall on the side of whatever they had learned first, so that is a hard one judge by.
Sator,
I apologize if I offended you or your family, it certainly wasn’t my intention. I respectfully disagree that interpreting liturgical texts on the fly using ASL is wise. Can a precise translation be done that way? I suppose so. But the odds are much less than interpreting it in Exact English, which would be the equivalent of reading the text.
And since we are talking about translating into a different language when it comes to ASL, then I would argue that there should be a specific authorized liturgical text to do so. Just like there is for English, Spanish, etc. The priest reads from an approved English translation of the Latin, not translating from the Latin to English on the fly.
I also think that Christine’s comments about her pratcices validates the notion that there are some shortcomings to ASL when interpreting certain things like liturgical texts.
I’m sorry if I made you think it was just the two of you thinking that way. I was merely responding specifically with your names in the posts. I know plenty of people who are frustrated at the education for D/HH (I’m one of them).
When I was interpreting, I wouldn’t be doing it “on the fly,” though. I would try to read over the readings ahead of time (I learned my lesson after the first Mass I did was Pentecost and I hadn’t looked it up first – I tried spelling the countries’ names and finally said, “Many countries came all together in one place at that time”), and one priest who liked to use big $5 words in his homilies would tell the interpreter what he was planning on saying. That was because the first time I interpreted for him, he used “transubstatiation” and then looked at me curiously to see what I would do. I had never heard the term before, and since he’d stopped and everyone was looking to see how I’d sign that, I asked, “What does that mean?” After his explanation (which I listened to so that I wouldn’t mess up the interpretation), I asked him to wait while I interpreted what he said, promising the Deaf parishioners that I’d spell it after Mass when I had a better chance to figure it out, and finally asked Father to continue with Mass. He felt badly that he’d caught me with a word I could not spell or define alone, so he helped all interpreters out after that. Of course, he got carried away another time and ad libbed the name of an Italian opera about a month later – with me interpreting – and looked at me with embarassment and said (into the microphone, so all could hear – which means I had to interpret it), “Oh. Sorry! Well, at least I didn’t say ‘transubstantiation’ again!” (Thanks, Father. You just did.) But, seriously, if we had a real problem understanding what something meant, we could ask. Except for that time, when he paused anyway (and was getting ready to explain it for everyone else, too), I never had a problem with knowing how to accurately interpret the Mass. (I admit, though, that we had very, very good interpreters at our parish; I know that isn’t always the case, but that means that better interpreters are needed.)
As for interpreting the rest of Mass, the Eucharistic prayers don’t change, so that’s not a problem, and the only other thing that might be a problem (if you don’t have a St. Joseph Missal) would be the various prayers. And those don’t tend to be very difficult.
Oooh. The Sign War is here. Now if we could just get someone arguing about the NO vs. the Tridentine, we could cross the Sign War with the Liturgy War and maybe have an alternative energy source.
But seriously…. As a low-skilled signer, (pretty much a pidgin ASL/Signed English/fingerspelling), I wonder if it would not be best for the Congregation for Divine Worship to authorize bodies in each country to determine the most accurate translation for (at least) certain critical parts of the Mass such as the Consecration and the Creed.
(And please, don’t worry, real ‘terps, I am NOT working at any Masses anywhere.)
Yes, ASL is a real language, and a native language of many — a vernacular. Babies babble in it, even. (Pretty much every linguistics teacher’s favorite fact.)
Re: why ASL isn’t an official liturgical language
I suspect the lack of a single official translation of the Mass is one big stumbling block. There’s an obvious fix to this, though implementation might be tricky.
The other one is a little harder: what is the exact theological meaning of uttering something, as opposed to signing it?
We don’t know. The theologians don’t know. It’s one of those things which is going to take some study.
The Church doesn’t dare jump in with both feet on something like this. It doesn’t have the authority to move fast; and it may not have the authority at all. The Church does try to adapt the Mass to everyone, and accommodate everyone. But the Host must always be made of wheat, and the wine of grapes, no matter how far across the world you go.
Can the Mass be validly celebrated in writing by a mute priest? (I’ve never heard of it being done.) I think it can be celebrated silently, though I could be wrong. Can it be validly performed by a paralyzed priest through a machine which translates typing into sound, or is that inserting too much mechanism into a human act? I don’t know.
The whole thing is a fascinating and frustrating theological and pastoral problem. (Not to mention the philosophic and linguistic aspects.)
But it comes down to this. Jesus did institute many important gestures; He was even known through the breaking of the bread. He could have signed prayers had He wished, just as he could have picked women apostles had He wished. But he spoke, with His mouth, the words that turned bread and wine into His body and blood. So it was clearly safer to tell priests to sign while speaking instead of guessing (especially after only a century or so of ASL) whether or not ASL words could transubstantiate.
Time will tell whether further study and thought will change this decision. I mean, geez, it’s not been that long that folks could say Mass in newfangled languages like English.
Comments are closed.