|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 9, Number 9
 September 1998 
|
|
|
"Give Us a Sign!"
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).
This is quite true. If a Mass is exclusively spoken, the deaf will not be able to participate actively by mentally following and responding to it.
Even if they had good reading skills for standard English texts (which many deaf, especially children, do not) and had the text in front of them, they could not reliably tell what part of the text the celebrant was saying. The only cues they would have would be the postures and actions of the celebrant and those around them. Not even lip reading would be a significant help, since lip reading would be virtually impossible at any distance from a celebrant, especially if the celebrant was not looking an individual deaf person directly in the face.
Without signed translation, the deaf person’s perception of what was being said would not rise to the level of comprehension that people in former days could achieve by having Latin and English on facing pages of missals. The situation for the deaf would be analogous to an English speaker having only the English text of a Mass that is being celebrated silently in Latin.
Since the Second Vatican Council desired a greater level of active participation in the Mass than was usually achieved with the Latin-vernacular missal technique, it is certainly not fitting for deaf Catholics today to have even less ability to follow the Mass than that.
This puts sign languages in a special position relative to the Mass, since there are no approved written texts for these languages. For example, American Sign Language (ASL), has its own grammar and vocabulary, and there is no established method of reducing its signs to writing (there are some experiments in sign writing going on now, but none has become standard). Until there is an established method of sign writing, it will be difficult to develop an approved ASL lectionary and sacramentary. Till then, those at deaf Masses will have to spontaneously translate the texts of the Mass into signs.
Perhaps a desire on the Church’s part to evangelize and catechize the deaf (who in general tend to be less well catechized than most contemporary hearing Catholics), as well as to providing them with translations of Scripture and the liturgy in their own languages, could contribute to the establishment of a standard method of sign writing. If any church is able to help establish such a method, it is the Catholic Church.
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.
James Akin
Q: I recently tried to prove Jesus’ divinity to a Jehovah’s Witness, and when I asked him to turn to John 1:1 in his Bible as one proof text, his version read "the Word was a god." How should I have responded to him? My Bible says in this verse that the "Word was God"?
A: Unless you want to get into an in-depth study of biblical Greek, there is another approach that can be used to demonstrate the inaccuracy of how John 1:1 is rendered in the New World Translation, the Jehovah’s Witness’ Bible.
Have the Witness read Isaiah 43:10 and Isaiah 44:6 from his Bible. Then ask him how many Gods there are who are true God by nature. The Witness will respond by saying there is only one true God. Since the Bible says there is only one true God by nature, ask the Witness if he agrees that all other so-called "gods" must be, by definition, false gods. You will get an affirmative response. Suggest that in light of these considerations we can use the phrase "true God" in the Bible whenever it speaks of the Creator and "false god" whenever it speaks of any other alleged "god." Then turn to the opening verses of John’s Gospel. Ask the Witness if Jesus is "true God."
He will respond in the negative. Then, using the premise you just established, read verses 1–14, but substitute the term "false god" each time "Word" appears in the text. The result will sound absurd. Read these verses again, but this time substitute "true God" instead. Ask the Witness which version makes theological sense (obviously the latter), and end by stating that the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that Jesus is indeed true God and that therefore the New World Translation’s rendering of John 1:1 cannot be accurate.
Joel S. Peters
Q: In your April 1998 issue, two people stated that the non-consummation of a marriage is grounds for a declaration of nullity—that is, an annulment. Surely this is incorrect, isn’t it?
A: You are quite correct, at least as you have stated the issue. A decree of nullity indicates that a marriage was never valid from the beginning. Since consummation is not required for a marriage to be valid, non-consummation is not itself a ground for judging a marriage invalid from the beginning. That said, there are two caveats that need to be made.
First, if the marriage remains unconsummated for an unusual period of time, it may be due to something that did render the marriage invalid from the beginning (such as antecedent and perpetual impotence; Code of Canon Law 1084 §1). In this case, the non-consummation is not the grounds for nullity, it is an indicator that there may be some other condition that might be grounds.
Second, while non-consummation does not mean a null marriage, it does mean it dissoluble. It is consummation that achieves the "one flesh" union (1 Cor. 6:16) which Jesus says makes marriage indissoluble (Mark 10:7–9). Consequently, a decree of dissolution can be granted for a non-consummated marriage.
James Akin
Q: On the various occasions when Jesus is confronted by the scribes and Pharisees, he responds to them by saying, "It is written . . ." Doesn’t this prove that the doctrine of sola scriptura is true, since he turns to Scripture as the authority to settle the disputes?
A: There are several points that need to be considered here. That Jesus quoted from Scripture (which, by the way, was only the Old Testament for him) as an authority does not automatically mean it was the only authority. It simply shows that he acknowledged Scripture as one source of authority, capable of settling some disputes (not necessarily all). Furthermore, there are instances in which Jesus quoted Scripture and then proceeded to give his own authoritative declaration, as in Matthew 5, where he repeatedly said, "You have heard it said . . . But I tell you . . ." Jesus quoted the Old Testament prohibitions against murder, adultery, divorce, and other practices. Then he gave new interpretations to these commandments, demonstrating that his own words are also authoritative.
That Jesus quoted from Scripture actually proves the Catholic position on the issue of sola scriptura. If you read such passages again, you will see that Jesus did not merely refer his listeners to scriptural verses and allow them to come to their own conclusions. They already had done that and had arrived at erroneous conclusions. Rather, Jesus gave his infallible, authoritative interpretation of those verses, precisely because people in his day wrongly understood them. Jesus’ actions clearly show that Scripture does not interpret itself and, in fact, requires an infallible teacher who speaks authoritatively when interpreting.
Joel S. Peters
Q: The Catholic Church forbids priests to marry. According to 1 Timothy 4:3, this is a "demonic doctrine," and therefore the Church is apostate.
A: Let’s get this straight. The passage talks about false teachers who "forbid marriage." Does the Catholic Church do that? Not at all. If you would like to marry in the Catholic Church, you may do so by receiving the sacrament of holy matrimony (notice that it is regarded as holy and as a sacrament). Far from declaring marriages to be evil or forbidding them, the Church blesses them by giving a man and woman the opportunity to confer this holy sacrament on each other.
What you are referring to is that, in the Latin Rite of the Church, the clergy are not allowed to marry.
Apart from exceptional cases, married men are not allowed to be ordained. But no man is obliged to become a member of the clergy. Doing so is voluntary. True, a priest may not marry, but he agreed to that restriction before his ordinations (first to the diaconate and then to the presbyterate).
What 1 Timothy 4:3 is talking about is those sects that claim that marriage is evil, such as the Albigensians of the Middle Ages or the Shakers of more recent times.
Mario Derksen
Q: Some bishops, including popes, have erred in "small matters," such as whether or not the earth revolves around the sun. If we cannot trust them in such small matters, how can we ever believe anything they say about "big matters" like how to attain salvation or Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist?
A: The reason we trust the bishops when they teach collectively (not individually) is that we have a promise from our Lord that he would not leave us orphans (John 14:18), that we would know the truth (John 8:32), that he would be with us always (Matt. 28:20), and that he would guide us into all truth (John 16:13).
We believe that Jesus keeps his promises, and since it is his task (and therefore the Church’s task) to lead us to salvation, the magisterium is kept free from error when the bishops dogmatically define a matter of faith and morals, such as at an ecumenical council.
Once it has been established that Scripture does not teach (as it does not) which body moves around the other, it is a matter of for science—not for the Church—to establish whether the earth moves around the sun or vice versa. It is a matter that falls outside the Church’s infallibility, which applies only to matters of faith or morals, not to matters of physical science. It is not that this is a "small matter"; it simply is outside the Church’s area of infallibility. That’s why the bishops can err in such cases.
Christ did not will that the pope and the bishops be infallible about things simply to answer the questions of the curious, but to make them effective shepherds in leading souls to God; hence the areas in which they are protected by the Holy Spirit are circumscribed. Topics such as how to be saved and the Real Presence have everything to do with salvation and our relation to God, so they fall within the Church’s area of infallibility.
Mario Derksen
Q: As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I was amused to read that your Pope continues to usurp episcopal authority from the bishops for himself. In his apostolic letter Apostolos Suos John Paul II now claims that an episcopal conference cannot publish a doctrinal declaration unless the bishops unanimously approve it. More centralization, less local authority. How much longer are you going to put up with it?
A: You have got it exactly backwards. Apostolos Suos is precisely a reassertion of the preeminent ordinary authority of the local bishop in his own diocese, in contrast to the centralized role of the national episcopal conference. What the Pope has done is to declare that doctrinal declarations cannot be imposed on any individual bishop and his diocese by majority vote of other bishops. If a document is to be published in the name of an entire conference, it must be approved by each bishop in that conference.
The teaching authority of local bishops is thus protected, and over-centralization and bureaucratization is prevented. Individual bishops retain local autonomy and are answerable only to the Holy See and to God, not to an intermediate group of their peers. A national conference, on its own, cannot force a pastoral or policy statement on a local bishop who disagrees with it.
Steven D. Greydanus
|
