Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 8.djvu/831

 LAKE

751

LAKE

undertake to defend the Catholic doctrine in pubhc discussions with heretics. But in their private capac- ity, they may most lawfully defend and teach their religion by word and writing, wliile submitting them- selves to the control and guidance of ecclesiastical authority. Moreo\'er, they may be appointed to give doctrinal instruction more or less officially, or may even become the defenders of Catholic truth. Thus they give excellent help to the clergy in teaching catechism, the lay masters in our schools give religious instruction, and some lajTnen have received a missio canonica, or due ecclesiastical authorization, to teach the religious sciences in universities and seminaries ; the important point in this, as in other matters, is for them to be submissive to the legitimate teaching authority. (3) As to J urixdidion and Adminhtration. — The principle is that the laity as such have no sliare in the spiritual jurisdiction and government of the Church; but they may be commissioned or delegated by eccle- siastical authority to exercise certain rights, especially when there is no question of strictly spiritual jurisdic- tion, for instance, in the administration of property. The laity are incapable, if not by Divine law at least by canon law, of real juristliction in the Church, according to chap, x, " De constit." (lib. I, tit. ii): " Attendentes quod laicis etiam religiosis super ecclesiis et personis ecclesiasticis nulla sit attributa facultas, quos obsequendi manet necessitas non auctoritas im- perandi ", i. e., the laity have no authority over things or persons ecclesiastical; it is their duty to obey not to command. Therefore no official acts requiring real ecclesiastical jurisdiction can be properly performed by the laity; if performed by them, they are null and void. A layman therefore cannot be at the head of a Church or any Christian community, nor can he legis- late in spiritual matters, nor act as judge in essentially ecclesiastical cases. In particular, the laity (and by this word we here include the secular authority) can- not bestow ecclesiastical jurisdiction on clerics under the form of an election properly so called, conferring the right to an episcopal or other benefice. An election by the laity alone, or one in which the laity took part, would be absolutely null and void (c.lvi, "De elect.") (see Election). But this refers to canonical election strictly so called, conferring jurisdiction or the right to receive it; if it is merely a question, on the other hand, of selecting an individual, either by way of presentation or a similar process, the laity are not ex- cluded, for the canonical institution, the source of spiritual jurisdiction, is exclusively reserved to the ecclesiastical authority. That is why no objection can be raised against the principle we have laid down from the fact that the people took part in the episcopal elections in the first ages of the Church; to speak more accurately, the people manifested their wish rather than took part in tlie election: the real electors were the clerics: and lastly, the bishops who were present were the judges of the election, so that in reality the final decision rested in the hantls of the ecclesiastical authority. It cannot be denietl that in the course of time the secular power encroached on the ground of spiritual jurisdiction, especially in the case of epis- copal elections; but the Church always asserted her claim to independence where spiritual jurisdiction was involved, as may be clearly seen in the history of the famous dispute about investitures (q. v.).

When jurisdiction properly so called is duly pro- tected, and there is question of administering tem- poral goods, the laity may and do enjoy as a fact real rights recognized by the Church. The most important is that of presentation or election in the wide sense of the term, now known as nomination, by which certain lajTnen select for the ecclesiastical authorities the person whom they wish to see invested with certain benefices or offices. The best known example is t hat of nomination to sees and other benefices by temporal princes, who have obtained that privilege by concor-

dats (q. v.). Another case recognized and carefully provided for in canon law is the right of patronage. Thia right is granted to those who from their own resources have established a Ijenefice or who have at least amply endowed it (contributing more than one-third of the revenue). The patrons can, from the moment of foundation, reserve to themselves and their descend- ants, the right of active and passive patronage, not to mention other privileges rather honorary in their nature; in exchange for these rights, they undertake to protect and maintain their fountlation. The right of active patronage consists principally in the presenta- tion of the cleric to be invested with the benefice by the ecclesiastical authorities, provided he fulfils the requi- site conditions. The right of passive patronage con- sists in the fact that the candidates for the benefice are to be selected from the tlescendants or the family of the foimder. The patrons enjoy by right a certain precedence, among other things the right to a more prominent seat in the churches founded or supported by them; sometimes, also, they enjoy other honours; they can reserve to themselves a part in the adminis- tration of the property of the benefice; finally, if they fall upon evil days, the Church is obliged to help them from the property that was acquired through the generosity of their ancestors. All these rights, it is clear, and particularly that of presentation, are con- cessions made by the Church, and not privileges which the laity have of their own right.

It is but equitable tkjt those who furnish the re- sources required by the Church should not be excluded from their ailministration. For that reason the par- ticipation of the laity in the administration of church property, es]5ecially parish property, is justified. Under the tlitTercnt names such as, "building coun- cils", ''parish councils", "trustees", etc., and with rules carefully drawn up or approved by the ecclesias- tical authorities, and often even recognized by the civil law, there exist almost everywhere administra- tive organizations charged with the care of the tem- poral goods of churches and other ecclesiastical establishments; most of the members are laymen; they are selected in various ways, generally co-option, subject to the approval of the bishop. But this hon- ourable office does not belong to the laity in their own right; it is a privilege granted to them by the Church, which alone lias the right to administer her own prop- erty (Cone. Plen. Baltim. Ill, n. 2S4 so.); they must conform to the regulations and act under the control of the ordinary, with whom ultimately the final deci- sion rests; lastly and above all, they must confine their energies to temporal administration and never encroach on the reserved domain of spiritual things (Cone. Plen. Baltim. II, n. 201; see Buildings, Ec- clesiastical). Lastly, there are many educational and charitable institutions, founded and directed hy laymen, and which are not strictly church property, though they are regularly subject to the control of the ordinary (Cone. Trid., Sess. VII, c. xv; Sess. XXII, c. viii); the material side of these works is not the most important, and to attain their end, the laity who govern there will above all be guided and directed by the advice of their pastors, whose loyal and respectful au-xiliaries they will prove themselves to be.

Ferr.vri.s, Prompta Bibliothem, s. v. Laicus; S.iGMijLLER, Kirchenrecht (Freiburg, 1909), 48: Ladhentids. Instil, juris eccles., n. 50 sq. (Freiburg, 190S) : Kirchenlexicon, s. v. Clerus. A. BOUDINHON.

Lake Indians, called by tliemselves Senijexteb and possibly- identical with the Lahanna of Lewis and Clark in ISO.i, a small trilie of Salishan stock, origi- nally ranging alongColumbiaRiver in north-cast Wash- ington from about Kettle Kails to the liritish line. In 1S21) l''ort Colvillo trading-post was cstablishod by the Hudson Bay Company in their country, but they re- main<'d almost unchanged until Christianized in 1846, chiefly through the efforts of the Jesuit Father Adrian