The VaticanNews portal reports on a retreat for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing in Thailand, organized by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Thailand (CBCT), emphasizing sign language in liturgy as core to the Church’s mission. Father Peter Bhuravaj Searaariyah states that proclaiming the Gospel in sign language is “the heart of the Church’s mission today,” framing accessibility as a “universal right” and the Church as “a home for everyone.” The article presents this as pastoral progress, highlighting structural challenges like a shortage of signing clergy. The underlying thesis is that the post-conciliar Church’s identity is defined by inclusive, human-centered pastoral adaptation, fundamentally reinterpreting its mission away from supernatural salvation toward naturalistic social inclusion.
Theological Subversion of the Church’s Mission
The article’s foundational claim—that making the Gospel accessible through sign language constitutes the “very pulse of the Church’s identity”—is a categorical denial of Catholic doctrine. The Church’s identity, from the dawn of Christianity, is the Mystical Body of Christ, a supernatural society established for the sole purpose of saving souls. Her mission is to teach all nations, baptizing them and teaching them to observe all whatsoever Christ hath commanded (Matt. 28:19-20). This is not a “pulse” of inclusivity but a command of divine law. By reducing the mission to linguistic accessibility and “holistic personal development,” the article replaces the supernatural end of the Church—the glory of God and the eternal salvation of souls—with a naturalistic, sociological goal of integration and “hearing with eyes.” This is the essence of the Modernist heresy condemned by St. Pius X: the transformation of the Church from a divine institution into a humanistic association.
Omission of Supernatural Necessities: The Grave Sin of Silence
The analysis must focus not only on what is said but on what is conspicuously omitted. The article discusses “spiritual growth,” “sacramental life,” and “grace” in purely natural terms. It is completely silent on:
- The absolute necessity of baptism for salvation (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus), a dogma defined by the Council of Florence and reaffirmed by Pope Pius IX in Quanto conficiamur (1864).
- The state of sanctifying grace as the indispensable condition for receiving the fruits of the sacraments fruitfully.
- The sacrifice of the Mass as the true, propitiatory re-presentation of Calvary, not merely a communal gathering.
- The final judgment and the eternity of hell as the ultimate context for all pastoral work.
- The moral obligation to abjure heresy and schism and submit to the sole authority of the Roman Pontiff for salvation.
This silence is not accidental; it is the hallmark of the conciliar sect’s theology. As Pius XI taught in Quas Primas, the Kingdom of Christ is spiritual, entered through faith and baptism, and requires the renunciation of earthly riches and the carrying of the cross. The article’s framework excludes this entire supernatural economy, reducing faith to a language of “values” and “understanding.” This omission is a direct betrayal of the souls it claims to serve, leading them to a naturalistic “Christianity” that cannot save.
Modernist Hermeneutics in Pastoral Practice
The article employs the classic Modernist hermeneutic of discontinuity and evolution. It presents sign language liturgy not as a legitimate adaptation within the immutable rite (which itself requires a valid Mass and priesthood) but as a new foundational principle for the Church’s identity. This is the “hermeneutics of continuity” in action: the idea that doctrine can evolve and that pastoral practice can redefine dogma. Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors condemned proposition #64: “The violation of any solemn oath… is… lawful… when done through love of country.” The article’s ethos similarly subordinates divine law (the immutability of sacramental form and the necessity of the Latin rite for validity) to the “higher law” of inclusion and perceived pastoral need. This is the sin of situation ethics, where the “good” of accessibility justifies the corruption of sacred rites. The post-conciliar “Mass” celebrated in Thai Sign Language, if derived from the Novus Ordo, is an invalid liturgical act—a sacrilege—regardless of the intention or the language used. The article’s presentation normalizes this sacrilege under the guise of charity.
The “Magisterium of Inclusion” vs. the Catholic Magisterium
Father Bhuravaj speaks of a “Magisterium of Inclusion.” This is a blasphemous term. The Catholic Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church, vested by Christ in the Pope and bishops in communion with him, to guard and interpret the deposit of faith (Dei Verbum, Vatican II, but pre-existing doctrine). It is not a “magisterium” of sociological adaptation. Its primary function is to condemn error and define truth, as seen in the decrees of the Holy Office and the Pontifical Biblical Commission before 1958. The article’s “magisterium” is the exact opposite: it is a magisterium of silence on dogma and a magisterium of affirmation of natural rights. It echoes the errors condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu, particularly propositions #58 (“Truth changes with man…”) and #64 (“The Church is incapable of effectively defending evangelical ethics…”). By making “inclusion” the measure of the Church’s identity, it makes man, not God, the criterion.
Structural Hurdles and the Real Obstacle: The Loss of Faith
The article identifies the “first challenge” as language, and the structural hurdle as a shortage of signing clergy. This is a deliberate misdiagnosis. The real obstacle is the catastrophic loss of faith among the clergy and the invalidity of the sacraments administered in the post-conciliar sect. A priest ordained in the new rite (Paul VI’s 1968 ordination) is, at best, of dubious validity. The sacraments he administers are, in all probability, null and void. Therefore, the deaf are not being “neglected” by a lack of sign language; they are being deprived of grace itself by a hierarchy that has apostatized. The article’s call for “more priests who can sign” is a call to perpetuate a system of invalid sacraments. It is like offering a deaf person a beautifully decorated box containing poison, and complaining the box isn’t signed. The only solution is the restoration of the true priesthood and the true Mass, which the article ignores entirely because it operates within the conciliar paradigm.
The “Church as Home” vs. the Church as a Prison of Souls
The statement “The Church must be a home for everyone, not just those with hearing” is a sentimental perversion of Catholic doctrine. The Church is indeed a home, but it is a spiritual home for the baptized in a state of grace. It is not a universal humanitarian shelter. As Pope Pius IX stated in the Syllabus, error #77: “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State…” This error of religious indifferentism is precisely what fuels the “home for everyone” mentality. The article’s vision is of a neutral, inclusive community, not the sole ark of salvation. It contradicts Pius XI in Quas Primas: the Kingdom of Christ “encompasses all men” in the sense of His sovereign right over them, not in the sense that all are automatically members. Membership requires baptism and faith. The article’s “home” is a building open to all; the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, into which one enters through a specific door (baptism) and must remain in by adhering to the whole of divine revelation.
Conclusion: A Pastoral Operation of Apostasy
The retreat described is not a Catholic event. It is a pastoral operation of the conciliar sect designed to give a veneer of compassion to a system that is fundamentally bankrupt. It uses the language of care to distract from the theological and sacramental devastation wrought by the Vatican II revolution. The deaf participants are being offered a sign-language version of a religion that has abdicated its divine mandate. They are being prepared not for the judgment seat of Christ, but for a comfortable, silent exile within the walls of a human institution that has replaced the sacrificium with a conventiculum. The true pastoral care for the deaf would be to provide them with valid sacraments, preach the uncompromised dogma of the Faith, and lead them to the true Church, which exists outside the conciliar structures in the remnant of faithful Catholics and validly ordained clergy who reject the heresies of Leo XIV and his predecessors. This article is a testament to the depths of the “abomination of desolation” standing in the holy place.
Source:
Thai Church centers deaf ministry as core pastoral mission (vaticannews.va)
Date: 17.02.2026