Order of St. Benedict of New Jersey v. Steinhauser

• Decision Date: 22 June 1910
• Citation: 179 F. 137
• Parties: ORDER OF ST. BENEDICT OF NEW JERSEY v. STEINHAUSER.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

179 F. 137

ORDER OF ST. BENEDICT OF NEW JERSEY v. STEINHAUSER.

United States Circuit Court, D. Minnesota, Second Division.

June 22, 1910

Otto Kueffner and Albert Schaller, for complainant.

Pitzer & Hayward, for defendant.

WILLARD District Judge.

This case presents a controversy in which the complainant claims that the property left by Augustin Wirth at his death belonged to it, because he lived and died a member of the Order of St. Benedict. The defendant claims that for various reasons the property belongs to the heirs at law. That the documents offered in evidence to show that Wirth belonged to the Order of St. Benedict, and that he had transferred his stability to the plaintiff, the Order of St. Benedict of New Jersey, were duly executed by Wirth, was admitted at the argument. Even without this admission the authenticity of the documents was sufficiently proven. From them it appears that Wirth became a member of the Order of St. Benedict at the monastery of St. Vincent in Pennsylvania, on August 15, 1852 and on May, 1887, being still a member of the order, he transferred his stability from the Abbey of St. Benedict in Kansas to the Abbey of St. Mary, Newark, N.J., and therefore to the Order of St. Benedict of New Jersey, the complainant in this cause. Wirth died at Springfield, Minn., December 1, 1901. Some suggestion was made during the taking of the evidence and in the briefs of the defendant to the effect that Wirth in moving to Minnesota ceased to be a member of the Order of St Benedict, and ceased to belong to the complainant corporation. I find as a fact, however, that at the time of his death he still remained a member of the order. Hoerr, a witness for the defendant, testified (defendant's record 149, 150) that he saw Wirth about a year before his death at Mankato, Minn., wearing the habit of the Order of St. Benedict. A receipt was introduced in evidence (defendant's record, p. 152), dated Springfield, Minn., January 2, 1900, signed by Father Wirth, and to his signature he added the letters O.S.B. He also made a financial report of the Church St. Raphael, Springfield, Minn., of which he was then in charge from January 1, 1900, to January 1, 1901, to which he signed his name as Augustin Wirth, O.S.B. There is nothing to contradict the almost conclusive evidence furnished by this testimony and these documents. Dying within the order, it follows that he was also a member of the complainant corporation, for there is nothing to show that he had transferred his stability from the Order of St. Benedict of New Jersey to any other monastery, although there was at the time in Minnesota a monastery of the order at St. Cloud.

The first question for consideration is this: What effect upon his rights to property was produced by his joining the Order of St. Benedict? When he joined that order he took the three vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience. The only one of these vows which it is necessary to consider in this case is the vow of poverty. The rule of St. Benedict which governed the order provided in its chapter 33, as follows:

'The vice of personal ownership must above all things be cut off in the monastery by the very root, so that no one may presume to give or receive anything without the command of the Abbot; nor to have anything whatever as his own, neither a book, nor a writing tablet, nor a pen, nor anything else whatsoever; since monks are allowed to have neither their bodies nor their will in their own power. Everything that is necessary, however, they must look for from the father of the monastery; and let it not be allowed for any one to have anything which the Abbot did not give or permit him to have. Let all things be common to all, as it is written. And let no one call or take to himself anything as his own. But if any one should be found to indulge this most baneful vice and having been admonished once and again, doth not amend, let him be subjected to punishment. ' (Complainant's record, p. 25.)

This rule was in force in New Jersey when Father Wirth became a member of the Order of St. Benedict of New Jersey. The abbot of St. Mary's testifying with reference to this rule said on page 123 of complainant's record:

'They lived in common with each other, and whatever they had the community gave to the monastery, only claiming what they needed of necessity; they have always been taken care of like the children of a family.' And again on page 192:

'There is no member claims anything as his own, but getting all he needs from the common income that we have. No member can call anything strictly his own, but for subsistence and for all he needs, all necessary things, he depends upon the income of the community at large.'

Father Engle, the Abbot of St. John's Abbey in Minnesota, testified as to the construction placed by the canon law upon the vow of poverty, and said on page 189 of defendant's record:

'A. As to vow of poverty when this is solemnly made in religious order it incapacitates such a member to possess or acquire property for himself and to make independent use of temporal things which can be valued in money.'

And again on page 192:

'Q. You say that incapacitates members from possessing property or temporal things whose value can be measured in money. Is that a well-settled principle of your canon law? A. Yes, sir. Whatever a monk acquires he acquires for his monastery. Q. That, you say, incapacitates a member or monk from holding property? A. Yes; in his name and for himself.'

The present Abbot of St. Mary's Abbey testified upon this subject as follows:

'Q. If a member subject to the dominion of the Abbot at Newark were to hold or obtain property of any description whatever in any state of the United States, would that property become the property of the order? A. It would. Q. And would it become such property of the order by virtue of the fact of vows which the possessor took? A. It would.'

As a matter of history it is well known that the members of a religious order have no property of their own. This was so universally by the canon law, and it is declared to be the municipal law of Spain in the Seven Partidas, compiled and published in 1263. Laws 2, 14, and 22, title 7, Partida 1. Even if a monk did depart from the convent and had charge of a church, he still could acquire no property of his own. Law 26, title 7, Partida 1. How far the civil courts are bound by the canon law it is not necessary to inquire, nor is there here any question as to the effect of the judgment of an ecclesiastical tribunal, such as was presented in Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 20 L.Ed. 666, cited by the defendant. Evidence as to the vows taken upon joining the order, and the testimony as to the effect of these vows is important only in the construction of the charter, constitution, and by-laws of the Order of St. Benedict of New Jersey.

The complainant here is not the Order of St. Benedict founded about the year 525, which is and always has been a religious order, but the orator in this case is a civil corporation chartered by the state of New Jersey, and known as the Order of St. Benedict of New Jersey. Father Wirth was a member not only of the religious society, but also of the civil society, and the civil society is the entity bringing this suit. Its rights must depend upon the construction given to its charter, constitution, and by-laws. If they differ from the rules governing the religious order, the latter must give way. That they do differ with regard to the matter of leaving the order will be seen later on in this decision.

What then do they provide? The act of the Legislature of New Jersey incorporating the Order of St. Benedict of New Jersey provides that certain persons named, 'and their associate members of the society called the Order of St. Benedict, being a society of religious men living in community and devoted to charitable works and the education of youth' be constituted a body politic under the name above mentioned. (Complainant's record, p. 128). The charter also provides that the corporation may 'make such by-laws for their government and for the admission of members into the corporation as they shall deem necessary and proper; provided, that such by-laws shall not be repugnant to, nor inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States or of this state. ' It also provides 'that no person shall be or remain a corporator except regular members of said religious society, living in community and governed by the laws thereof.'

The constitution provides, among other things, as follows:

'Section 2. The object of this corporation is divided between the educational training of youth and the spiritual guidance of souls. Each is conducted in conformity with principles and general discipline of the Roman Catholic Church and in accordance with the disciplinary statutes of the Order of St. Benedict, well known throughout the Roman Catholic Church.'

'Section 10. To become and to be a member of this corporation it is absolutely necessary:

'1. To become a member of the Order of Saint Benedict founded about the year A.D. 525 by St. Benedict in Italy, and well known in the Roman Catholic Church.

'To have made solemn vows in the said order and to have received the Order of Priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church.

'Section 12. Since the Order of St. Benedict of New Jersey is solely a charitable institution, the real estate of said order and the individual earnings of its members, are and must be considered as common property of the Order of St. Benedict of New Jersey from which the members of said order derive their support and the balance of which income and property should serve for the following up and carrying out of the charitable objects of the order.

'It is

...