Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 8.djvu/827

 LAINEZ

r47

LAINEZ

the suppression of the Papal States, swallowed up in the new Kingdom of Italy. Ecclesiastical property, especially that of the monasteries, already encroached upon by partial secularization in the eighteenth cen- tury, was confiscated in Spain (1820, 1835, and 1837), in Portugal (1833), in Mexico (1856), and, for the most part, in Italy (1866). Almost everywhere the ecclesi- astical immunities (see Immunity) disappeared, legis- lation became purely secular, civil marriage was estab- lished, and the Church, except in the case of Divine worship, excluded from public service, or participating in it only by the favour of the sovereign State.

In this brief expose it has not been intended to gen- eralize to any great extent. The situation is not the same in all countries; it is only in France that official secularization and laicization have been carried to the extreme limits. On the other hand, we are far from overlooking those deeply rooted general causes of the transformation of modern society which have rendered inevitable a certain amount of secularization. There is no longer unity of faith: various confessions have multiplied and mingled inthesame country; temporal interests have assumed a preponderating importance in the life of each state; ideas of religious toleration and liberty have spread and are accepted everywhere. In a word, the ideal harmony between the two powers is no longer capable of realization. Moreover, this marked separation of the two authorities is not with- out certain advantages for the Church. But while all this must be recognized, it remains true that laiciza- tion pushed to extreme limits is contrary to Catholic teacliing, and therefore must be condemned; moreover, it is injurious to the real interests of temporal society. To understand the position of the Church in this mat- ter, we must first make allowance for her just protests against violation of her acquired rights. Theoretic- ally, the Church can and does submit to secularization that does not affect her rights as a spiritual society or interfere with the exercise of these rights in concrete social conditions, the demands made upon her natu- rally varying according to time and place. However, she must condemn any measures that affect her essen- tial rights and the freedom necessary for the exercise of her sacred ministry. No principle can justify in a society composed of Christians the exclusion of every Christian idea, nor in any human society the exclusion of all religion and of the Deity. The Catholic doctrine on the juridical relations of the Church and the State is explained elsewhere (see Pius IX, "Syllabus", props. 39 sq., 77 sq.). But the most superficial atten- tion to the influence of religion, especially of the Catho- lic religion, on the moral life suffices to show the al> surdity and danger of laicization, even when this is not identical with legalized persecution of the religious idea.

(See also State. For the present progress of laici- zation in France, see France, VI, 179 .sqq. For the facts relating to the history of the different countries, see England; France; Ger.\iany; etc. Also I.vves- T1TDRB8, Conflictof; Galucanism; LodisXIV, etc.)

The principal facts may be found in Sagmuller, Ktrchen- recht (Freiburg, 1909), §14, 173 sq., containing a full bibliog- raphy. On the question of ecclesiastical rights, see Cavagnis, Institulwnes juris puhlici ecclesiastici, I (Rome, 1906); Weber in Kirchenlexikon, a. v. Sacularisation der Kirchengiiter (for Germany).

A. BOUDINHON.

Lainez (Laynez), James, second general of the Society of Jesus, theologian, b. in 1512, at Alma- zan, Castille, in 1512; d. at Rome, 19 January, 1565. His family, although Cliristian for many generations, had descended from Jewish stock, as has been estab- lished by Sacchini (Historia Societatis Jesu, II, sec. 32). Lainez graduated in arts at the University of Alcald (1531), and won his licentiate in philosophy there at the age of twenty (1532). At Alcaht, the young Castilian and his friend Sahneron had heard of

Ignatius Loyola. To meet him, they betook them to the great University of Paris (1533) and there fell under the spell of his masterful will. Lainez was the second to join Loyola and was one of the sc-ven who, on 15 August, 1534, made the vows of religion in the chapel of St. Denis, on Montinartre. Three years were now spent by Lainez. in works of charity and zeal, for the most part in Northern Italy. In 1537, Ignatius .sent his companions to present themselves to the Holy Father. Paul III discussed doctrinal ques- tions with them. He was struck by their bearing and learning, granted them permission to be ordained priests and to go to the Holy Land. This pilgrimage was prevented l)y political troubles. Lainez was charged by the pope to teach theology in the Sapi- enza. His teaching and preaching were productive of immense good in those unsettled days. Rome, Venice, and Vicenza were saved from heresy by his labours. Paul III became an enthusiastic admirer of the new society. He chose three Jesuits, Lainez, Salmeron, and Lefevre as sole papal theologians to the Council of Trent. The latter died in Rome before the council began its sessions. Lainez and Salmeron were joined by two other Jesuits at Trent, Le Jaye who represented the Bishop of Augsburg, and Covil- lon the theologian to the Duke of Bavaria.

At Trent, Lainez came into prominence just as soon as the question of justification was reached. Luther and his followers had gone astray chiefly on this very doctrine. No more important subject could have come before the council. Long discussions preceded the definition, and Lainez and Salmeron stood out most prominently. These dogmatic discussions, in the early sessions of Trent, took place without for- mality of precedence. The theological discussions were under the charge of Cardinal Cervini, later Pope Marcellus II; he arranged that Salmeron should be among the first speakers on each topic, so as to set down the right doctrine from the outset; Lainez should be the last to speak, so as to sum up the discus- sion and point out clearly the errors of preceding theologians. The two Jesuits were immensely in- fluential against some of the Lutheran ideas where- with unfortunately not a few of the theologians of the council were tainted. The bishops asked for copies of the vote of Lainez and Salmeron. While the two papal theologians thus bore the brunt of the battle for Catholic truth in the matter of justification, at Trent, strong influence was brought to bear on Ignatius to send Lainez to do apostolic work in Florence. Sal- meron prevented such a loss to the council by telling Ignatius the power of Lainez in Trent. Shortly thereafter, Lainez did his greatest service to the coun- cil in the discussion on justification. Jerome Seri- pando, a most devoted and saintly man, who later presided over the sessions of Trent, tried to combine the Catholic with the Lutheran idea of justification; and defended a twofold formal justice, our own and the imputed justice of Christ (Theiner, "Acta Con. Trid.", I, 235). The answer of Lainez so pleased the Fathers of Trent that they honoured it by incorporat- ing it word for word in the .Acts of the council, a uniciue honour. On 13 January, 1547, by unanimous vote, their clear and definite decree on justification was passed unanimously, the doctrines which Lainez had stood for being defined. Hereafter, whereas very few theologians were allowed to speak an hour, Lai- nez was privileged to address the assembly for three hours or more. We are not surprised to find Sal- meron writing to Ignatius that to take away Lainez from Trent "were, without any exaggeration whatso- ever, to take away one of its eyes from this council" (Epistola? .Salmeron, 20 Jan., 1547). In April, 1.547, Lainez went with the council to Bologna, where he spoke on penance and extreme unction. The oppo- sition of Charles V preventing many bishops from reaching Bologna, the council was indefinitely pro-