INTERPRETE. – In the current canonical order as well, the ancient juridical institution of the interpreter has its importance. With regard to the Sacrament of Confession, it was in wide and peaceful use in the Middle Ages, as can be seen from the Summa theologica of S. Tommaso; it underwent some modifications in certain pontifical constitutions (Clemente IX, In excelsa, 13 September 1669, and earlier Alessandro VIII, Sacrosancti apostolatus, 18 January 1658), and received its definitive formulation in the decree of the S. Congregation of Propaganda Fide of 6 September 1630, in response to a doubt raised by the patriarch of Constantinople.
The CIC (can. 903) freely permits the use of an interpreter for the Sacrament of Penance. The qualities that the interpreter must possess in this case are not determined by the CIC; therefore, any person may be chosen for this purpose, provided that he or she is capable of carrying out this mission and that there is moral certainty that the sacramental seal will be observed, as prescribed by the same can. 903 and confirmed by can. 889
§ 2, and that abuses (not employing one without necessity, choosing a suitable place and time, etc.) and scandals be avoided. The method indicated by moral theologians is certainly praiseworthy: the interpreter, with his or her back turned to the penitent, should repeat to the penitent the questions asked by the confessor, and the penitent should answer with affirmative or negative signs. In this way better provision is made for observing the sacramental seal, which is also imposed under threat of penalties established by can. 2369 § 2 in proportion to the gravity of the matter, and which may extend even to excommunication.
The use of an interpreter is also permitted for the celebration of Matrimony, according to can. 1090, which in this respect recalls the ancient law. This may occur when the contracting parties (or one of them) are entirely unfamiliar with the language in which they can be questioned by the parish priest and understood by the witnesses, or when they are deaf-mutes. The lawful use of an interpreter is, however, subject in this case to the fulfilment of the following three conditions, prescribed by can. 1091: there must be a genuine necessity for celebrating Matrimony in this manner; there must be no doubt whatsoever concerning the interpreter’s fidelity;
and, where time permits, the prior permission of the Ordinary must be obtained. Here there is a general law, valid for the entire Church, without any limitation whatsoever with regard to territory.
Finally, in procedural law as well, both in the general order (can. 1641) and in the special order in force in cases of beatification and canonization (can. 2037 § 3), the use of an interpreter may be required. In the former case, the interpreter must be sworn, as is also required by certain civil legislations, appointed by the judge, and beyond any legitimate objection that might be raised against him or her by the parties.
M. Lega-V. ARTOTIRITI, Commentarius in iudicia ecclesiastica, I, Roma 1938, p. 282; F. Roberti, De processibus, I, 2nd ed., there 1941, pp. 344–45; Wernz-Vidal, VI, no. 199.
Severino Alvarez-Menéndez