[6] John Berchmans was the son of a master shoemaker named John Charles Berchmans, and was born in the year 1599. His biographers tell us that as a child he grew up as gentle and guileless as a lamb, and early shared his time between the school and the altar.
When about fifteen years of age, he joined the Society of Jesus, although his parents were somewhat opposed to his taking this step. In a letter to his mother at that time he tried to bring his parents to be reconciled to his taking this step; he wrote, “God is now pleased, after much prayer, out of His goodness to give me a vocation to religion and to the ‘Society of Jesus,’ the hammer of all heresies, the vessel of virtue and perfection. I hope you will not be so unreasonable as to oppose Him, but as (as I have read in history,) the Egyptians offered their children to the crocodile, which they looked upon as a god, and, while it was eating them up, the parents made high festival, so too, I hope you will rejoice as they did, and praise God, and thank Him that your son should be found worthy,” etc.
This Jesuit saint seems to have been “celebrated for devotion to His Lord in the blessed Sacrament” and devotion to the Virgin Mary. He was looked upon as a “portent of holiness.” He is said “to have preserved unstained by grievous sin the white robe of baptism.” He died in the year 1621. At eight o’clock on Friday, Aug. 13th, 1621, with “his eyes on his crucifix,” and with “the holy names of Jesus and Mary on his lips he went to his reward.”
Miracles of course were said to be wrought through his relics. In 1865, Pius IX. published the decree for his beatification, and on Jan. 15th, 1888, Leo XIII., amidst the splendid festivities of his sacerdotal jubilee, solemnly canonized him as a saint.—Editor.
[7] The late Rev. Dr. Pusey recommended Ritualistic Father Confessors to give the following advice to those Sisters of Mercy who might happen to be their penitents: “I would have great respect paid in confession to your confessor, for (to say nothing of the honour due to the priesthood) we ought to look upon them as angels sent by God to reconcile us to His Divine goodness; and also as His lieutenants upon earth, and therefore we owe them all reverence, even though they may at times betray that they are human, and have human infirmities, and perhaps ask curious questions which are not part of the confession, such as your name, what penances or virtues you practise, what are your temptations, etc. I would have you answer, although you are not obliged to do so.” (“Manual for Confessors,” p. 190. London, 1878.) Heaven help the poor sisters who have to answer the “curious questions” of an inquisitive or wicked Father Confessor.—Editor.
[8] The following is an extract from a lecture delivered by Mr. W. Walsh, at Bath, reported in the English Churchman, Nov. 26, 1886:
“He (Mr. Walsh) had now to direct attention to the Vow of ‘Obedience,’ taken by many Ritualistic Sisters of Mercy. The rule as to ‘obedience’ varied considerably. In Dr. Pusey’s sisterhood, it was very objectionable indeed. The rule of holy obedience commands the sisters: ‘Ye shall ever address the spiritual Mother with honour and respect; avoid speaking of her among yourselves; cherish and obey her with holy love, without any murmur or sign of hesitation or repugnance, but simply, cordially, and promptly obey with cheerfulness, AND BANISH FROM YOUR MIND ANY QUESTION AS TO THE WISDOM OF THE COMMAND GIVEN YOU. If ye fail in this, ye have failed to resist a temptation of the evil one.’
“Would not such a rule as this, Mr. Walsh continued to say, if placed in the hands of a wicked Mother Superior, lead to the most fearful results? In Father Benson’s ‘Religious Life Portrayed for the Use of Sisters of Mercy,’ the teaching was, if possible, placed in a still more fearful light. In that book the sister is taught that—
“‘A religieuse has made the sacrifice of her will in taking the Vow of Obedience. She is no more her own, but God’s; and she must obey her Superiors for God’s sake, yielding herself as wax to be moulded unresistingly.’”
Well did Mr. Walsh observe: “Persons who had to submit to ‘obedience’ such as this were as truly slaves as any negro.”—Editor.