Sacramental formula and imperfect pronunciation?

[Daniel]

How does this work? Suppose the minister says the correct words, but, for whatever reason, his pronunciation is way off. Like, suppose he mumbles, or stutters, or has a really thick accent, or has some sort of speech impediment, or even just has really bad pronunciation when it comes to ecclesiastical Latin (or whatever language he's using). Would the sacrament be valid, since he spoke the correct words... or would it be invalid, since the words spoken were not correct? (What if his pronunciation is so bad that the word he speaks ends up as a completely different word?)

[Melkor]

The priests are elites who study Latin for 7+years. I think they know how to pronounce their phrases.

[Daniel]

The priests are elites who study Latin for 7+years. I think they know how to pronounce their phrases.

Well diocesan priests don't, but I don't want to sidetrack the discussion. Even granting that they have good pronunciation, what about the other stuff?

Mumbling - A priest could conceivably do this. It would be a sacrilege (treating the sacrament without due reverence), but I'm sure it's not unheard of.

Stuttering and other speech impediments - This is probably rare since the seminaries screen their candidates and there aren't likely to be many newly-ordained priests who have speech impediements. Neverthless, I'm sure it has probably happened at some point in the Church's history. Or there might be cases where the priest--after he was ordained--sustained some sort of an injury to the mouth or throat. (Could even be temporary. Suppose the priest has a cold so his voice is nasally. Or he has a sore throat, and his voice is hoarse. Or he lost his voice and can barely talk. These sorts of things would alter his pronunciations.)

Accent - Let's face it, nobody is a native speaker of ecclesiastical Latin. I believe that Italians come pretty close with regard to pronunciation, but a lot of non-Italian priests probably have accents of varying degree and I'd imagine some could be very thick.

[GiftOfGod]

Holy crap, Daniel. Your scruples are terminal if you are nitpicking pronunciation. I would say "seek help" but we had an entire thread on that (which happened to just be locked, by the way).

[andy]

Holy crap, Daniel. Your scruples are terminal if you are nitpicking pronunciation. I would say "seek help" but we had an entire thread on that (which happened to just be locked, by the way).

How is your dating?

[GiftOfGod]

Holy crap, Daniel. Your scruples are terminal if you are nitpicking pronunciation. I would say "seek help" but we had an entire thread on that (which happened to just be locked, by the way).

How is your dating?

Pretty good since I dumped your wife a few months ago.

[andy]

Holy crap, Daniel. Your scruples are terminal if you are nitpicking pronunciation. I would say "seek help" but we had an entire thread on that (which happened to just be locked, by the way).

How is your dating?

Pretty good since I dumped your wife a few months ago.

My wife? That has to be a mistake. You would be  if that was a case.

[Jayne]

How does this work? Suppose the minister says the correct words, but, for whatever reason, his pronunciation is way off. Like, suppose he mumbles, or stutters, or has a really thick accent, or has some sort of speech impediment, or even just has really bad pronunciation when it comes to ecclesiastical Latin (or whatever language he's using). Would the sacrament be valid, since he spoke the correct words... or would it be invalid, since the words spoken were not correct? (What if his pronunciation is so bad that the word he speaks ends up as a completely different word?)

It does not affect validity.  Even small mistakes, like using the wrong Latin ending, do not affect validity.

[Daniel]

In what way is this "scrupulous"? The Church teaches that the sacramental form is necessary for validity.

It does not affect validity.

But there's a line to be drawn somewhere, right?

"This is my body." This is valid.
"This is my boody." Is this valid?
"This is my booty." Is this valid? Last I checked, booty is not the same thing as body.
Or how about, "This is my buddy." My point being that minor mutations in even just one or two sounds can have a huge effect on the overall meaning.

Even small mistakes, like using the wrong Latin ending, do not affect validity.

Do you have a source? I don't see how this could be the case, seeing as the inflections alone can make a huge amount of difference. Ego te baptizo... ("I baptize you...") is totally different from Ego te baptizor... ("I am baptized by you...").

[Jayne]

St. Thomas addressed the question of mispronunciation in the Summa:

STIII q60 a7

Reply to Objection 3. If he who corrupts the pronunciation of the sacramental words—does so on purpose, he does not seem to intend to do what the Church intends: and thus the sacrament seems to be defective. But if he do this through error or a slip of the tongue, and if he so far mispronounce the words as to deprive them of sense, the sacrament seems to be defective. This would be the case especially if the mispronunciation be in the beginning of a word, for instance, if one were to say "in nomine matris" instead of "in nomine Patris." If, however, the sense of the words be not entirely lost by this mispronunciation, the sacrament is complete. This would be the case principally if the end of a word be mispronounced; for instance, if one were to say "patrias et filias." For although the words thus mispronounced have no appointed meaning, yet we allow them an accommodated meaning corresponding to the usual forms of speech. And so, although the sensible sound is changed, yet the sense remains the same.

What has been said about the various mispronunciations of words, either at the beginning or at the end, holds forasmuch as with us a change at the beginning of a word changes the meaning, whereas a change at the end generally speaking does not effect such a change: whereas with the Greeks the sense is changed also in the beginning of words in the conjugation of verbs.

Nevertheless the principle point to observe is the extent of the corruption entailed by mispronunciation: for in either case it may be so little that it does not alter the sense of the words; or so great that it destroys it. But it is easier for the one to happen on the part of the beginning of the words, and the other at the end.

The examples you gave in your question all sounded to me like inadvertent mispronunciations that do not change the meaning and therefore do not affect validity.  As you can see, it is theoretically possible for mispronunciation to change the meaning, in which case validity comes into question.  This, however, is unlikely to happen in practice.

[Insanis]

In what way is this "scrupulous"? The Church teaches that the sacramental form is necessary for validity.

Unless you are a professional investigating this question properly, it probably indicates a lot more anxiety than should be present.

The form is not about superficials to the extent that a particular pronunciation is held as absolute. That would not be consistent with reality. It is the meaning of the word and the intent behind saying it that matter, so unless someone is not deliberately saying another word, and they intend what they are meaning, then it is valid.

After all, with your question, you can reduce it to such fine details it becomes ludicrous.

Do you have a source? I don't see how this could be the case, seeing as the inflections alone can make a huge amount of difference. Ego te baptizo... ("I baptize you...") is totally different from Ego te baptizor... ("I am baptized by you...").

Do you accept that sacraments can be conferred in Spanish, French, and Italian? Those are all corrupted Latin. And yes, it is a result of people actually speaking Latin getting very bad at staying consistent with what we would call attested Classical Latin and the vulgar forms that were in common use at the time.

Deliberately saying and meaning something other than what is supposed to be said is not a sacrament. It isn't the form or the intent. However, you are inventing scenarios of ambiguity. That isn't healthy.

Someone can appear to do it perfectly, yet, not actually confer the sacrament if they do not intend to.

Don't let that drive you crazy, but it is the truth. It is most common in demonstrations: all the sacraments can be demonstrated in full without conferring them, because it was not intended.

[moneil]

I'll stay out of the discussion for prudence sake, but the topic caused me to recall a thread from 4 or more years ago.  I don't recall the exact topic of the thread but there was a clip from the Low Requiem Mass that Richard Cardinal Cushing celebrated for President John Kennedy .  To this day I still get a sly smile recalling a forum member's comment of "Latin on crack"  .

Adding a postscript: I might be remembering a thread on another forum (which has something of an aquatic name) as I recall Dr. Bombay commented and I don't know if he ever posted here, though he might have.  The "Latin on crack" poster is a member here, and that phrase still gives me a smile.

[Kaesekopf]

Holy crap, Daniel. Your scruples are terminal if you are nitpicking pronunciation. I would say "seek help" but we had an entire thread on that (which happened to just be locked, by the way).

How is your dating?

Pretty good since I dumped your wife a few months ago.

Consider this a warning to both you and andy, especially since this subforum is geared towards more serious discussion/debate.

[andy]

Consider this a warning to both you and andy, especially since this subforum is geared towards more serious discussion/debate.

Apologies for trespassing the sub-forum rules. My response was indeed hard to get without knowing my past exchanges with Daniel and GoG and it did not contribute to the thread in this meticulously maintained forum where all members always rigorously stay on a given topic.

By the way, I preemptively dropped my avatar so there is no more scandal incurred if I am actually get banned and a picture of  beautiful Catholic statute would be not associated with a ban for casual visitors.