Page 1 of 15

Holy and Venerable Hands:

Sign Language and the Eucharistic Prayer
Ireland Library Lecture
Monday October 19, 2015 7:30 pm
Rev. Dr. Tom Margeviius, STL, D.Min.
I.

Introduction
I have been involved with the Deaf at Our Lady of Mt. Carmel parish in Minneapolis for

18 of the past 20 years, when I began there as a seminarian: it was my Teaching Parish. I studied
ASL from a Deaf tutor, and by the time I was ordained I was competent enough to attempt Mass
in sign language. I asked several priests how they learned to sign Mass, and they all told me the
same thing: there are no Church directives; each priest comes up with his own version. Further,
there are no scholarly studies on the issue. Thats why I chose it for my doctorate.
II.

Liturgical Theology
Liturgy, Home of the Depositum Fidei Let us recall that liturgy passes on the faith.

Vatican IIs Constitution on the Word of God Dei Verbum 8 asserted: The Church, in her
teaching, life, and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all
that she believes. The Catechism of the Catholic Church n.1124 understands the phrase lex
credendi, lex orandi this way: The Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive
element of the holy and living Tradition. Consequently, we shouldnt casually mess around with
liturgy: to do so would jeopardize the faith itself. Sacrosanctum Concilium n.22 insists, No
person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own
authority. St. Paul himself did not invent liturgy, but was careful to transmit the tradition: I
received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was
handed over, took bread (1 Cor 11:23). Through the centuries, as the Church encountered

Page 2 of 15
new cultures, she always sought to guard the liturgy as she translated the faith into new
languages.
However, as the Latin pun has it, traduttore, traditore: the translator is a traitor. In
handing on what is received, the message becomes altered. Something is always lost in
translationand something is gained. The more the recipients culture differs from the
transmitters, the greater the risk of mistranslation. To many of the deaf, liturgy still feels like
hearing-persons Church.
Signs and Symbols, Words and Gestures. Liturgy inhabits the world of sensory things
signs and symbols, words and gesturesand thus is accessible to all, including the deaf. As a
social being, CCC 1146 states, man needs signs and symbols to communicate with others,
through language, gestures, and actions. God also communicates through symbols. The CCC
continues: God speaks to man through the visible creation perceptible realities can become
means of expressing the action of God who sanctifies men, and the action of men who offer
worship to God.
The terms signs and symbols usually refer to objects such as icons, oil, bread and wine.
But the Deaf understandmaybe more than hearing people dothat words are symbols too. So
too are ritual movements/gestures: all these communicate in the liturgy. We need a better
appreciation of liturgys semiotics. In Sacramentum Caritatis n. 64 Pope Benedict wrote, A
technological age like our own risks losing the ability to appreciate signs and symbols. More
than simply conveying information, a mystagogical catechesis should be capable of making the
faithful more sensitive to the language of signs and gestures which, together with the word, make
up the rite.

Page 3 of 15
Hearing people tend to regard liturgys words as essential, but its gestures
inconsequential. This too needs to be rethought. We dont often consider what we are saying by
means of gestures, nor what God is saying to us through gestures. For example, when a priest
lays hands on the sick during anointing, this communicates: God is not afraid of your condition.
He wants to be near you, to touch you through the warmth of hands, not just words. Further, as
the Deaf keenly know, non-verbal bodily communication affects what is verbally being stated.
Your actions are speaking so loudly, goes one proverb, that I cant hear a word youre
saying. For good reason we call it body language. When it comes to celebrating Mass, a priest
is understandably anxious to articulate the sacramental formula accurately, but if his body
language communicates disinterest, this is not good liturgy. There is more to it than simply
say the black, do the red. How the words are said, as well as how the gestures are performed,
matters.
The Church could learn much from the Deaf. Consider the theology of the Incarnation:
the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. That recurs in sign language: the word literally
becomes flesh as it is signed. SC n.7 taught that Christ speaks when the holy scriptures are read
in the Church. Analogously, I argue that Christ signs when the Word of God is signed in Deaf
liturgy. Studying Deaf language and culture can enrich our sacramental theology.
Inculturation. Saint John Paul II in Catechesi Tradendae was the first pope to employ the
word inculturation, a term that appears nowhere in the documents of Vatican II, which instead
speak of liturgical adaptation. The Holy Father wrote that the term inculturation may be a
neologism, but it expresses very well one factor: the great mystery of the Incarnation (CT 53).
Liturgical inculturation is bi-directional: the liturgy becomes part of a particular culture, and
simultaneously that culture affects and enriches the liturgy. This is historically obvious: as the

Page 4 of 15
Church expanded into new territories and cultures, the liturgy adopted many cultural expressions,
from the use of language to vessels and vestments. The 1994 Vatican Instruction Varietates
Legitimae established principles to oversee the how of liturgical inculturation, but the fact of it is
inevitable and manifests the Incarnation ever anew. As CCC 1204 puts it, The celebration of the
liturgy should correspond to the genius and culture of the different peoples. If inculturation is
bi-directional, this raises the question: How might the Church benefit from the perspective of
Deaf persons? To put it another way, how can our liturgy be more Deaf?
III.

Deafness
Privatio facultatis Deafness as a bodily condition is regarded as a privation of faculties

humans usually enjoy. Theologically, such a privation is also regarded the result of original sin.
The conclusion: deafness is an evil, to be remedied by any means human or divine. That is why,
we presume, Jesus healed a deaf (Mk 7:31-37). Let us call this the medical model of deafness:
it is a sickness to be eradicated. Indeed, medical advances such as cochlear implants and
improved neonatal care are making deafness increasingly uncommon in Western societies.
Societal Marginalization. The Deaf regard the medical model problematic because it
masks a condescending attitude, whether or not this is intended. Consider the familiar word pair
deaf and dumb: unable to hear, unable to speak. Dumb has also become a synonym for
stupid. This exposes a prejudice: society often assumed the deaf were stupid, pitiable, helpless
people we should heal, or at least take care of with charity. The medical model, in short,
maintains a power differential: hearing people control the lives of the deaf.
Deaf Cultural Identity. This is why the Deaf prefer a non-medical model for identifying
themselves. Being Deaf is more than a bodily condition; its a way of looking at life, at
relationships, and even at God. Its a culture with its own language, set of values, and social

Page 5 of 15
codes. The Deaf capitalize the word, just as one capitalizes Latino. I have been ministering with
the Deaf for 20 years, and though I am familiar with Deaf culture, I still think like a hearing
person. Cultural identity is usually learned in a persons young, formative years. Indeed, hearing
adults who become medically deaf later in life rarely become culturally Deaf.
The Church and Deaf Ministry. In ministering among the Deaf the Church has only
recently been taking account of their cultural identity. The worldview of the deaf is so unlike that
of hearing people that for centuries the deaf were regarded incapable of reason. In the First
Century BC the Roman poet Lucretius wrote, To instruct the deaf, no art can ever reach, No
care improve them, and no wisdom teach. The Church, embedded in Greco-Roman culture,
scarcely imagined how to transmit the faith to the deaf. In the Bible, the deaf normally appear
needy and pitiable, and God warns hearing people not to abuse them: You shall not curse a deaf
man, nor place a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall revere your God (Lev 19:14).
Often, deaf is used an idiom for being hard-hearted, closed to God and neighbor. Nowhere do
the writers of sacred scripture seem capable of considering, Whats life like from a deaf
persons point of view? much less, What can we learn from the Deaf? St. Paul rhetorically
asked, How can they believe in him of whom they have not heard? (Rom 10:14). While he
probably meant hear symbolically, he did not even consider how to evangelize the deaf.
Supposedly, Saint Augustine doubted the deaf were capable of faith, based upon Rom 10:17:
Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ. Pair this with Heb 11:6Without
faith it is impossible to please Godand its easy to see why transmitting the faith, and the
liturgy, to the deaf has been slow-going.
The Church never stopped caring about the Deaf, even if she only gradually grew in
appreciation of their potential. Several saintly men and women ministered among the deaf and

Page 6 of 15
treated them as full persons for whom Jesus sacrificed his life. Saint Bede in the Eighth Century
recorded a manual alphabet used by the deaf, and several scholastic-era churchmen taught the
Deaf to write. In the 1700s St. Francis de Sales developed a method of sign language to catechize
a deaf man, and for this reason de Sales is invoked as the patron saint of the deaf.
The Frenchman Abb Charles-Michel de l'Epe (1712-1789) is the father of modern
deaf education. He codified the first standardized system of sign language and founded the
worlds first school for the Deaf in France, which was ahead of the rest of the world in deaf
education. In the 1800s an ordained Congregational minister of French ancestry, Thomas
Gallaudet (1787-1851), helped establish the worlds first institution of higher learning, now
Gallaudet University in Washington DC. Gallaudet brought in from Paris a pioneer in Deaf
education, Laurent Clerc, who taught the Deaf to communicate using sign language. American
Catholic Church leaders preferred the Italian method of forcing the deaf to speak, and resisted
the approach of Clerc, who was a Roman Catholic. So he left the faith. Thereafter, for the next
80 years Catholics were not permitted to enroll in Gallaudet. Fortunately, both Gallaudet and
American Catholics are now friendly toward each other, but more progress remains to be made.
The Churchs worldview differs from that of the Deaf, some of whom insist, We want
a Deaf God, meaning not a God unable to hear, but one who inhabits Deaf culture and uses sign
language. Faith will be intelligible to the Deaf to the degree that it corresponds with their culture.
This explains why hearing ministers, who may be doing our best to serve the Deaf, are not as
effective as Deaf leaders are.
The Church has been slow recognizing this. The 1917 Code of Canon Law regarded
deafness as an impediment to holy orders, following a tenuous understanding of Lev 21:21: No
descendant of Aaron the priest who has any such blemish may draw near to offer the oblations of

Page 7 of 15
the LORD. For someone born and raised Deaf, speech is a foreign language, difficult to learn.
Only those deaf men who learned spoken language well enough to pronounce sacramental words
aloud could be ordained. When Mass was further said in Latin it was practically impossible for a
Deaf man to become ordained before widespread vernacular Mass after Vatican II.
Thankfully, the revised Code of Canon Law no longer regards deafness an impediment
to orders. The first Deaf man to be ordained a priest in the USA was a Dominican, Fr. Thomas
Coughlin. He graduated with BA in English from Gallaudet in 1972, obtained an M.A. in
Religious Studies from CUA, and was ordained in 1977 by Cardinal Shehan of Baltimore. He
founded a religious community, the Dominican Missionaries of the Deaf Apostolate, now based
in San Antonio with a handful of men. So what does Fr. Coughlin do, and what do I do, when it
comes to praying the liturgy in Sign Language?
Problem at Hand (groan)
The Deaf often have a minimal grasp of liturgys special concepts and language, and
consequently some Deaf have advocated inventing their own liturgy according to their
worldview. Deaf liturgy should be left to Deaf communities to create and only involve hearing
people when Deaf people invite them to make a contribution, concludes Deaf writer Wayne
Morris. Surely many aspects of our liturgy seem irrelevant to the Deaf. What does sacred
silence mean for the Deaf? Or consider the Easter Vigil, after sunset, where the only light
comes from candle flames as the Deacon chants the Exsultet. A Deaf person is doubly in the
dark, since he can neither see nor hear the text. Or what should happen at Deaf Mass when its
time to ring the bells at consecration: flicker the ceiling lights? The rubrics of the Roman Missal
frequently expect the priest to do things with his hands while speaking words. If he is signing the
words, how is he supposed to do the gestures? That is the topic of my doctorate.

Page 8 of 15
In 1965 Pope Paul VI granted priests permission to celebrate Mass in Sign Language,
but in the 50 years since no document from any Vatican office has said how to do it. In fact, Pope
Paul VI only mentioned a priest using sign language at the same time he is speaking the words.
This suggests that the Pope regarded sign language in itself (without spoken text) to be
inadequate for expressing sacramental formula. Linguistic studies over the past 50 years have
demonstrated that sign is a bona fide language in its own right capable of communicating
complex concepts. But so far there is no sign language editio typcia of any liturgical text. Canon
928 of the Code of Canon Law mandates, The Eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in the
Latin language or in another language provided that the liturgical texts have been legitimately
approved. Why isnt sign an approved liturgical language yet? That question uncovers many
complications:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Who is qualified to translate the liturgy into sign language?

What to do with theological vocabulary for which there are no signs?
Who submits the translation for Vatican recognitio [approval]?
In what format could the translation be documented (videos?)?
Who in the Vatican is qualified to evaluate the adequacy of the translation?
How will the Church enforce the required use of the new translation?

Beyond translating the text, a second issue is even more delicate. How should we regard
those signing priests who already today pray the sacraments only in sign language, without also
speaking the words? Do their actions contra legem invalidate the sacrament? Certainly, bishops
and religious superiors bear the responsibility to oversee these priests, but so far none have
required them to stop celebrating only in sign language. Why not? Perhaps because allowing
these translations to continue is less problematic than the alternative of declaring them invalid.
Such a declaration would be awkward enough when applied to all those Eucharists, Confessions,
and Anointings; but worse, every Baptism, Wedding, and Confirmation would have to be redone.

Page 9 of 15
All told, it seems more reasonable to hold that sacraments celebrated exclusively in sign
languageeven though in illicit, unapproved translationsare nonetheless valid.
The Topic I Studied
My doctorate explored a more practical problem: what should a signing priest do when
the rubrics require him to use his hands as hes signing words? He cannot simultaneously hold
his hands in the orans position, for example, while signing the prayer.
I focused on the rubrics of the Second Eucharistic Prayer (apologies to those who hoped
that, based on the title of this lecture, I would speak of the Roman Canon). I identified those
times that the manual gestures overlap with words. Lets watch a short video of me praying the
words in English and performing the rubrical gestures while an ASL interpreter (Sue Gudenkauf)
signs the words. Captions will identify each conflict.
WATCH VIDEO 1
There are six possible ways to solve the sign-words-vs.-do-the-gesture conflict:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Omit gesture entirely

Delegate signing to another
Delegate gesture to another
Interrupt signing text to insert gesture
Finish signing text, add gesture later
Modify signing and/or gesture (e.g. one-handed performance)

I investigated each conflict from two perspectives: liturgical, and sign-grammatical. Liturgically,
what is the meaning of the rubrical gesture? Where did it come from? How important is it?
Grammatically, how does sign language communicate these words? Would inserting the rubrical
gesture affect the signing grammar? Consider, for example, the epicletic gesture [palms down,
hands extended over chalice and hosts on altar], which resembles the ASL sign for TRAP
DOOR, such as entry to a basement. If a Deaf person sees, Send your Spirit upon these gifts,
and suddenly TRAP DOOR shows up in the sentence, how does that affect what is

Page 10 of 15
communicated? Based on both perspectives (liturgy and ASL), I suggested a solution for each
conflict. Now lets watch a video of me going alone.
WATCH VIDEO 2
How Successful Was The Solution?
I interviewed Deaf Catholics at a conference in San Diego January 2015. I showed them
the two videos, distributed surveys, and analyzed their responses. The results are insightful.
When asked how important it was for the priest do rubrical gestures, heres how they answered:

In Deaf Mass, how important is it for a priest to

perform the rubrical gestures of the Roman
Missal?

Somewhat Important

Very Important

Absolutely Important

(blank)

I also asked whether it is important for the priest at a Deaf Mass to pray in sign language:

In Deaf Mass, how important is it for the priest to

sign the words of the Eucharistic Prayer himself?

Not Important

Somewhat Important

Very Important

Absolutely Important

The Deaf think it far more important to sign the words than retain every rubrical gesture.

Page 11 of 15
Without going into the specifics of how the Deaf evaluated each solution, overall they
thought the attempts helped them understand the Eucharistic Prayer better:

Did this help you understand the Eucharistic Prayer

better?

No help.

Helped a little. Helped pretty well. Helped very much.

(blank)

What would Church officials think of these solutions? Thats hard to ascertain. Surveying
members of an Office of Divine Worshipin the USCCB, the Vatican, or the diocesan levelis
no way to gauge success. Church decisions are not based on popular polls but upon theological
principles. What are they, in this case? This is ecclesiastically uncharted territory. No one knows
whats supposed to be done, let alone whether Ive done it well. Many Church leaders remain
ignorant of the Deafs particular needs. At that same Deaf conference last January, a priest from
the USCCB gave a talk, What can USCCB do for the Deaf? One woman said that the USCCB
needs more signing interpreters. The priest conceded, I can see how having more interpreters
would help the Deaf understand what the bishops are saying. No, she countered, you need
more interpreters so the bishops can understand what the Deaf are saying!
The Churchs liturgical offices dont yet have the competence to evaluate, much less
endorse and then implement, an official approach to sign language in the Eucharistic Prayer. This
is flying with no GPS, no flight plan to guide procedure, nothing but word-of-mouth experience
from priest-pioneers who have gone ahead. All I know is, there are Deaf Catholics out there who
want the liturgy in a way they understand, and if we dont do this, who will?

Page 12 of 15
Questions Needing Further Study
What about Sacramental Validity? There are many other areas of uncharted territory. For
example, how does signing the sacraments alter sacramental theology? We know that form must
accompany ritual: the minister is required to do the actions at the same time he articulates the
words. How distant can the liturgical gesture be from the text and still be intelligible? Take
Baptism for example: would sacramental validity be in jeopardy if the signing priest first signed
the words I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirt, and
then poured the water three times? Each sacrament has its own particular essential ritual
moment, and each would have to be studied to see the implications for sacramental theology.
Would American Deaf Catholics Embrace an ASL Editio Typica? Frozen texts are
those unchangeable formulas that can be repeated and memorized. Hearing cultures are
comfortable with them: the Pledge of Allegiance, the Boy Scout Oath, and the Our Father.
Putting the words onto paper prevents future iterations from deviating from the established text.
But there exists no universally-accepted method of recording on paper all the particulars of sign
language (hand shape, palm orientation, movement, direction, speed, facial expressions, etc.),
though ASL linguists do use shorthand summaries (called glosses). Without the printed page to
standardize how a text is signed, deviations are common. Video capturing is more effective at
precluding deviations, but video is still not as widely accessible as written text. Consequently
frozen texts are rare in Deaf culture. Trying to get Deaf Catholics to adopt exactly this and only
this version of a signed Mass is likely to face an uphill climb. The hearing Church would offer,
Heres your official ASL translation, but the Deaf might reply, We dont do frozen text!

Page 13 of 15
Other Ways to Inculturate Deaf Liturgy. Beyond translating the liturgical text into sign
language and trying to solve the gesture-vs.-signing challenge, there are other liturgical issues
that must be reconsidered in Deaf liturgy, including:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Translation of scriptures;
How sacred silence is manifest;
How architecture, light and darkness function;
Church decoration (how much visual clutter can the Deaf process?);
Accentuating rhythm to facilitate praying in unison;
Attention to social justice: the Deaf have long been marginalized and abused;
Adaptations necessary in bilingual/bicultural Deaf + Hearing communities.

Changes in these areas also go beyond Church directives and would have to be approved. How
would those be authorized? If getting Church officials to approve a sign language translation
seemed intimidating, it will be even more challenging to approve other liturgical changes,
especially in a climate favoring uniformity with the Third Edition of the Roman Missal.
How can the Church become more Deaf? In John 9 Jesus disciples ask him whose sin
caused a man to be born blind. Jesus corrects them: Neither he nor his parents sinned; it is so
that the works of God might be made visible through him. The mans condition is the means
through which God reveals many truths: that Jesus is the real Light of the world, that spiritual
blindness is more grievous than physical, and that we must not equate a persons physical
infirmity with moral failure. Far from being merely a privatio facultatis, blindness can be an
instrumental cause of Revelation, a locus theologicus.
I contend that Deafness too can be a locus theologicus in the Church. If inculturation
really is a two-way street, then the Church can be enriched by her Deaf members, who invite us
to rethink theology with ever-greater clarity. For example, liturgy often uses the response, If
today you hear Gods voice, harden not your hearts. Thats metaphoric language: we dont
mean, literally, that Gods vocal chords cause the air to vibrate, which strikes our eardrums,

Page 14 of 15
sending an electronic pulse to our cerebral cortex. In fact, if a person were to claim he actually,
physically, heard Gods voice, we would be skeptical and wonder whether the person might be
suffering from wishful thinking, an overactive imagination, or mental illness. Deafness makes us
ask what exactly we mean by hear Gods voice. Im not suggesting we change the liturgical
wordsit is biblical language, after allbut only that we think more carefully about what we
are, and are not, asserting.
Take another example: the Ephphatha rite in Baptism. Many hearing people assume I
omit it when I baptize children of Deaf families who would be embarrassed because Jesus healed
a deaf man. That assumption betrays a shallow understanding of the scriptural event itself. A
careful reading of Mark 7 discloses, for example, that Jesus did not say to the deaf man, Be a
hearing person! He said, Be opened, which is moreand more importantthan merely the
ability to hear. The mans deafness isolated him from society. Jesus is more concerned about the
mans openness to life, to others, and to God. The Deaf get it about this passage, and some
Deaf Catholic groups have even chosen the name Ephphatha because it expresses their desire to
be spiritually open, not a wish to be hearing. Of course we do the Ephphatha Rite; why wouldnt
we want the Deaf to be open to God?
The Deaf Are Us. In the end, acknowledging that the Deaf are full members of the
Church invites us to reexamine our ecclesiology. Pope Francis recently repeated a familiar
saying in a tweet: The measure of the greatness of a society is found in the way it treats those
most in need. True enough, but if we consider the Deaf as no more than the needy, it will only
perpetuate condescension that keeps the Deaf at a distance. Instead, they are integral members of
the Body of Christ the same as hearing people are. If anything, perhaps the Church should give
them even greater recognition. Saint Paul wrote, There are many parts, yet one bodyThe parts

Page 15 of 15
of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary God has so constructed the
body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it, so that there may be no division in the
body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another (1 Corinthians 12:20-25).
In sum, the identity of the entire Church is at stake. Marginalizing the Deaf from liturgy
diminishes the entire Church, who desires that all her membersnot just hearing onesbe led
to that full, active, and conscious participation in the liturgy which is their right by baptism. If
the celebration of the Eucharist is the source and summit of the life of Deaf Catholics too, then
the Church can make still greater progress to facilitate their praying the Eucharist more fully,
actively, and consciously.
Thank you.