First Friday Devotion to Sacred Heart 

By Father Edward McNamara, LC

ROME, September 17, 2013 (Zenit.org) - Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy and dean of theology at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: My Christians have the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus which is observed on the first Fridays of the month for nine months. Because of another pastoral commitment, when I am not available to offer Mass for them on one of the first Fridays, can I authorize a change of the first Friday to the second Friday of the month? -- D.M., Nairobi, Kenya

A: This question relates to the promise of the Sacred Heart to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque (1647-1690). Among other promises he stated:

"I promise you, in the excessive mercy of my Heart, that my all-powerful love will grant to all those who communicate on the First Friday of nine consecutive months, the grace of final penitence; they shall not die in my disgrace, nor without receiving their sacraments, my Divine Heart shall be their safe refuge in this last moment."

While the devotion to the Sacred Heart gained great popularity after the apparitions to St. Margaret Mary, it does not depend on these visions. In some form or other it is rooted in Christianity itself as a particular way of approaching Christ. As St. Augustine says, it is reaching Christ God through Christ the man.

Devotion to the Sacred Heart was already implied in many masters of the spiritual life. Blessed Henry Suso, a Dominican religious inspired by St. Augustine, said, "If you desire to attain knowledge of the divinity, it is necessary to ascend gradually through the humanity and the Passion of this humanity as the easiest path."

The devotion was inculcated over the centuries by the meditations on Christ's wounds and especially the wound to his heart. These reflections were aided by biblical texts such as John 19:34 and Isaiah 53:5. Especially influential was Song of Songs 4:9: "You have ravished my heart, my sister, my spouse, you have ravished my heart." Many writers such as Origen, St. Ambrose and St John Chrysostom applied this text to the Passion. This tradition was later strengthened by the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible which translated the text as "wounded" (vulnerasti) rather than ravished.

During the Middle Ages these initial reflections were deepened and broadened with new ideas, especially with more personal and tender elements. Among the writers who influenced this development were St. Bede the Venerable, Haimo of Auxerre, and John of Fécamp, a Benedictine. Their meditations on the Passion inspired numerous imitations. The figure of St. Bernard of Clairvaux dominates his epoch, and his meditations on the Song of Songs gave new impulse to this devotion. His devotion directly influenced many others such as his friend Aelred of Rievaulx and Ekbert of Schönau whose "Stimulus Dilectionis" was incorporated by St. Bonaventure in Nos. 18-31 of his work "Lignum Vitae."

These works also influenced popular piety and devotions as well as the liturgy with many hymns and feasts related to themes of the Passion, such as the feast of the "Transfixation" of Christ's heart. For example, we offer a rough translation of the 12th-century hymn "Summi Regis Cor Aveto," composed at the Premonstratensian Abbey of Seinfield near Cologne.

"Let me sing to you, Heart of my God, and present you a cheerful and cordial greeting. My heart desires to joyfully embrace you. Let me speak to you. What love is it that has forced you? What pain has penetrated you, so that you empty yourself so fully, and, lover, you surrender yourself to us, and thus not even death can overpower us?"

In the following centuries other saints influenced the spread of this devotion, such as Matilda and Gertrude the Great, and the Carthusians of St. Barbara of Cologne. Among the disciples of the doctrine propagated by this monastery were the early Jesuits St. Peter Canisius and Peter Fabro. This devotion to the Sacred Heart promoted by the early Jesuits prepared the terrain which years later led fellow Jesuit St. Claude de la Colombiere to understand and accept the visions of his penitent, St. Margaret Mary. It also explains in part the strong impulse and support that this order would give to this devotion in the centuries to come.

With respect to the precise question, I believe there are two possible solutions to this difficulty regarding the impossibility of fulfilling the First Fridays.

First of all, since the promise is united to receiving Communion, and not necessarily to attending Mass, a Communion service could be arranged on the Friday when Mass is impossible. This would appear the safest solution.

Second, a few authors point out that the object of this devotion is to inflame our hearts with an ardent love for Jesus and make reparation for the offenses committed against him, above all in the Blessed Sacrament. Since this can be done on a daily basis, these authors suggest that the pious practices tied to the First Fridays are not confined to this particular day. Therefore if someone is legitimately prevented from carrying out the practices on a Friday, he may offer the devotions in the same spirit on any other day.

This is a legitimate, but far from universal, opinion based on God's infinite mercy and knowledge. Most authors make no mention of exceptions, as the grace is tied to a specific promise made in a private revelation. It is clear, however, that someone who carries out these practices with the proper intention will be duly assisted by divine grace.

There does not appear to be any Church law on the subject. In general, except in granting indulgences, the Church refrains from legislating on matters related to private revelations, even if they are officially approved and recommended as this devotion certainly is.

* * *

Bringing Pets into Church

By Father Edward McNamara, LC

ROME, September 10, 2013 (Zenit.org) - Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy and dean of theology at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: I have sought some clarification on a point, that is, about bringing a dog into the church during Mass. -- T.K., Maharashtra state, India

A: A search in several languages has failed to produce much in the way of Church norms on this point.

Even civil legislation varies widely. An Italian law, for example, allows dogs on leash into most public spaces except where food is prepared. Guide or service dogs for the blind are allowed even into these. In other countries entrance to public spaces is more or less restricted, or the decision is left to the owners of the premises.

Local culture and attitudes toward animals is also an important factor. Some societies have a very positive attitude towards the presence of pets, while others are less welcoming. It does not appear that any universal norm can be established.

This would also hold true, more or less, for churches. From what I have been able to glean from various sources, it would appear that in most cases the final decision would fall upon the priest, who should decide in accordance with general principles and local situations.

In most cases, however, the response of priests would be to discourage the faithful from bringing their pets to church, except for the case of service animals.

Indeed, this feeling would be shared by the majority of the faithful. Most people would consider it inappropriate to bring their own pets to church and would be uncomfortable in a situation where those of others were present.

Among the reasons for this reluctance are the following:

-- Most members of the faithful come to church to worship God with their full attention. If they want to be entertained, then they go to a concert or a play. If they desire to enjoy a pet's company, then they go to the park. Likewise they probably leave their pets alone at home on many other occasions such as when they go to work, the theater, or attend a formal social event. Therefore, there is even more reason not to bring them along to church where they could be a source of distraction to themselves or others.

-- The pets do not benefit from the celebration, and indeed the close-packed environment might even be a source of stress for the animals themselves.

The exception is, of course, the annual blessings of animals that are carried out on the feasts of certain saints such as Francis of Assisi. On these occasions, however, the entire celebration or the blessing ceremony is usually held outdoors and not inside the church building.

-- Even the best-trained and cleanest pets can still cause allergic or phobic reactions for no small number of people young and old. Most Christians would wish to avoid being an agent, even involuntarily, of such difficulties for fellow worshippers.

These are just some reasons why both priests and faithful would be generally unfavorable toward bringing dogs and other animals into church. There may be some exceptions and more or less tolerance in some places, but I believe this is the overall view.

This fact does not mean that the Church has a negative view of animals and does not appreciate them as part of God's creation. As the Catechism says:

"2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.

"2416. Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

"2417. God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

"2418. It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons."

Not having animals in church means simply that the context of worship is not the usual or proper place for showing such respect and kindness toward them.