The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-03-08
"YOW OF POVERTY"
IN HIGHEST COURT
Decision Will Affect All
MOnasteries and
Nunneries.
VAST SUMS ARE INVOLVED
Case Of Father Worth Will BE
Argued in Washington
This Week.
VAST SUMS ARE INVOLVED

The order OF 81. Benedict OF New .Jer
sey. In an EFFORT to get possession Of the
estate left by one OF its members, Fathc-
Augustine Worth. will ask the United
states Supreme Court in Washington next
Thursday to construe the "vow Of
poverty taken on entering the order.
The vow Is taken by nuns also and should
II be decided that the rule OF the order
cannot be enforced in the courts many
monastic orders and nunneries and mill
ions OF dollars will be involved Father
Worths heirs claimed his estate OF some
$4,000, and the order replied that under
the vow taken at the time of his admis-
sion he forfeited all rights to any estate
he might leave.
Father Worth became a monk in 1859.
when he entered the monastery OF 81.
Vincent In westmoreland county. Pa. In
1857 he was transferred to New Jersey.
where he remained until 1897. In the
meantime he had become known as
writer on Catholic topics and the pub
Usher of number of books When he
left the order he became a secular priest
at Springfield. MINI. In 1901 he died
leaving a brother. a nephew and a niece.
who lived In Nebraska City. Neb. They
engaged William Hayward and his lazy
partner. William II. Pitzer. to sue for
| the estate which was chiefly in notes
mortgages and royalties on books An
administrator was appointed in Minnesota
and he took charge of the property there
Now Pot In ss Defence.
Mr.. Hayward came TO New York and
brought suit against Benziger Bros. pub
fishers, for AN accounting OF royalties
due to Father Worth. They set up the
defence that the priest had taken "A VOW
of poverty in the Benedlctine order and
that they owed nothing. because OF the
vow. a Federal Judge restrained a prose-
cution of the action at that time. and the
New Jersey order then brought suit to
recover the estate in the hands OF the
administrator In Minnesota. Mr. Hayward
protested that the rule embody!ng the
vow OF poverty was not enforceable in the
United States. The court ruled in favor
OF the religious order and an appeal was
taken to the Circuit Court of Minnesota
That court reversed the lower court. sus-
tanning the contention OF Mr.. Hayward
After this decision the order retained
Morgan J. O'Bricn to appeal and he got
IA writ OF certorari.
: The opinion OF the Minnesota court
quotes the abbot:
He THE member is bound for life
by his vows, and the only way to get
out IL by secularization. being secuiarizen
by transferring the vow OF obedience to a
Bishop and being dispensed by living
,.sts - Al
terry"
Lower Court Rales In NEGATIVE.
The opinion then adds:
by this the reverend abbot obviously
means that under the law OF the nurch
the vows Of member OF the order are
regarded as such that they can only he
absolved therefrom by the anirrnatiy.
action OF the Holy Father as the head %:
the Church. and unless ne sees fit to Civ.
the requisite dispensation the member Is
bound for life In temporal as well as In
spiritual affairs. If such IL the meaning
OF the vow. IL II enforceable in the civil
courts. either at law or in equity? We
think not.
Chapter SO OF the rule provides: The
all things be cut or In the monastery by
the very root. no that no one may pre-
sumo to give or receive anything without
command OF the abbot. since monks are
allowed TO have neither their bodies nor
their will In their own power. Every.
thing that il necessary, however they
must look for from the father of the
monastery; and let 1t not be allowed for
any one to have anything which the abbo,
does not give or permit them to have
such an agreement is no more en-
forceable. In the civil courts at least
than would be an agreement to surrender
or forfeit to another his life In thl,
country II is the inherent and natural
right OF every person to acquire and holt
property In his own right,
III the vow and the rule together are
treated as contract and to mean what
is claimed for II by complainant, that il
not enforceable as against after acquire,
property, either at law or in equity"
I