The Irish standard., 1914-06-27
THE VOW OF POVERTY UPHELD.

THE VOW OF POVERTY UPHELD.
The United States Supreme Court
handed down an important decision
regarding the VOW of poverty taken
by those who enter Catholic Orders,
when it announced in its recent de-
c,sion that in the case brought before
the court from Springfield, MIMI,
bv relatives of the late Father With
that the Benedictine Order was en-
titled to the property left by the
priest as against the relatives. Inc
order effects every priest, nun ana
brother in the Catholic Church. 1t
reverses the order of the circuit court
Of appeals. which held that vows OF
poyerty in Catholic Orders are void
because against public policy. Faith
or Wirth was, for nearly half CEN
tury, member of the Benedictlne
Order and as such took the vows 81
poverty, turning over all his properly
that he then possessed and any prop
erty that might come into his pos
session to the Benedictine Order.
Through writing, the sale Of booRs
and such means he left at his death'
nronertv valued at about $5.OOo.
During his lifetime the Order gave
no attention to the sums of money
that were coming in from various
sources to Father Wirth and upon
his death, relatives took steps to gain
possession of the moneys which ma
turally belonged to the Benedictlne
Order. The case was tried in Brown
County in this State. The Pfcoate
Court recognized the heirs as against
the claims of the Benedictines. the
case was appealed to the higher
courts and the legal controversies
have extended over a period of years.
The main point in connection WIN
the legal contention was the effect OF
the VOW of poverty. 1t is well Sno"h
that when a member of a religious
order takes a vow of this order they
in turn are received into the oraer.
given a home, receive such care ana
attention as is necessary during ILL
ness. and should they, after joining
the order, through illness or accident
be unable to perform any OF the nee
essary labors, they are provided with
such care and comfort as Is known 10
nrevail among the religious orders
This is a mutual agreement. a sufh-
cient consideration to legalize the
contract. However, had the reverse
of the present circumstances been the
case. and Father Wirth instead OF
beine able to accumulate any sum
of money through his labors had
been charge upon the Order from
the time he entered, through SICK
ness or infirmity, it is safe to say
that the relatives who SO stubbornly
fought to set aside the intent OF MS
vow. would in no wise have consid-
cred themselves in any way indebted
to the Benedictine Order for the care
given to Father Wirth were he I'M
able to labor in his chosen field. The
precedent established in this case is
one of far-reaching Importance. "A
similar decision recently HANDED
down in the courts of England es'
tablished the validity of the vows
taken by the members of religious
orders in Great Britain. The decision
in the present instance. handed down
as it has been from the highest court
in the United States, establishes the
validity of the vows of poverty IN
this country. BY these two decisions
the status of members of religious or
ders is now firmly established by the
courts in all countries where COM
mon law prevails.
SPLIT IN IRISH GOVERNING
BOARD. .