LAICISM

Etymologically and historically, the term "laicism" suggests a movement wherein the laity seek to take over clerical functions and to comport themselves in civil life without taking into account the Church's prescriptions and teachings. This concept ill accords with laicism as it is known nowadays. Among the contemporary partisans of laicism are men who have never belonged to the Catholic Church and who are sometimes strangers to all religious affiliation. Yet these men are called "laymen." While remaining outside the Church and even while rising up against it, they retain a name borrowed from the ecclesiastical vocabulary. Thereby laicism avows its origins; it can be born only in Catholic countries. Often it is confused with anticlericalism, which anteceded it and is a negative and popular form of it. "Laicism" and "laicist" are terms belonging to the Catholic armory of combat; the opposing camp speaks only of "laïcité" and laic (laïque ). To give precision to these vague notions, distinctions are necessary.

Early Manifestations. The various forms of laicism can be grouped and examined from two viewpoints, institutional and political.

Institutional. The distinction between clerics and laity in the Church is of divine institution. To deny this or to try to dilute it is to adopt a laicist position. Such happened in montanism, which accorded more authority to prophets than to priests and bishops. Although they separated from the Roman Church, the Montanists retained, from the third to the fifth centuries, a hierarchy of an unusual kind, since it very probably included women. Among the numerous medieval heresies, those of the cathari and waldenses exalted those Christians whom they termed "spiritual" and regarded as priests those who passed as "morally perfect." According to John wyclif, only the predestined are truly priests. Attitudes of this type remained hesitant and confused; while abandoning the hierarchy they attempted to retain at least some elements of it.

Luther and Calvin, however, were well aware of what they denied. In his Open Letter to the Christian Nobility (1520) Luther termed oversubtle and hypocritical the teaching that pope, bishops, priests, and monks are called to the ecclesiastical state; whereas princes, lords, artisans, and peasants are called to the lay state. All Christians, according to him, belong to the ecclesiastical state; all are consecrated priests by Baptism. Calvin affirmed that there is only one priest, Jesus Christ, and two Sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist; all the other Sacraments, including Holy Orders, are merely "false sacraments."

quesnel, along with some 18th–century Jansenists, revived certain ideas of Edmond richer in order to transform them into laicist Richerism by equating priests and bishops, laymen and priests. To the laymen, in Quesnel's view, belong a determining role in the excommunication of bad Christians, in the election of pastors, and in the confirmation of doctrinal definitions. These ideas inspired the authors of the civil constitution of the clergy (1790).

Political. St. Ambrose once had to remind Theodosius that the emperor was "in the Church and not above the Church." After the conversion of Constantine, however, the Roman emperors watched over the Church and considered themselves "bishops of those outside." Later the barbarian kings were likewise invested with ministerial roles. The episcopate was then said to be in the hands of the king, who intervened in the recruiting of bishops, convoked councils, and alone gave legal force to synodal decrees. When kings were consecrated, their power appeared still more clearly to be a necessary prolongation of ecclesiastical authority. Not without reason did E. Amann and A. Dumas, authors of the seventh volume of Histoire de l'Église (ed. A. Fliche and V. Martin), subtitle this tome The Church in the Power of the Laity, 888–1057, because bishops were elected both by the clergy and by prominent lay personages. During this period, temporal rulers often did not await the choice of the clerical electors; rather they imposed their own candidates on them. The emperor and certain kings conferred investiture on abbots and bishops by cross and ring. All the energy of Pope Gregory VII (1073–85) was required to curb this invasion of laicism (see investiture struggle).

Less than two centuries later, the continual claims by civil rulers against the ecclesiastical world found support in a laity better instructed and more conscious of its rights. This new lay spirit developed by means of a philosophy inspired by Aristotle's political theories and was strengthened subsequent to the gaining of communal liberties, which were often won despite clerical opposition that occurred, in Flanders, Italy, France, and Germany.

This outlook was revealed blatantly in the conflict between Pope boniface viii and King philip iv, the Fair, of France. It was to sustain Louis IV, the Bavarian, that marsilius of padua composed the Defensor pacis, which John XXII condemned (1327). According to the Defensor pacis the Church is only the totality of the faithful believers who invoke the name of Christ; the State should reserve to itself the choice of candidates for the priesthood, nominations to pastorates and other benefices, control of religious teaching by priests, surveillance over devotional practices, and payment of salaries to the clergy, who should no longer have any possessions. The Western Schism, ockhamism, and the revival of the study of Roman Law provided a convergence of circumstances that facilitated the return of the episcopate to the power of rulers. The papacy had to make concessions. Thanks to a concordat concluded in 1516 with Pope Leo X, the king of France obtained control over all consistorial benefices; he could expect thereafter to have as bishops and abbots only men devoted to him.

The French government went further; without breaking with the Holy See, it conducted a "lay policy." Thus, it did not hesitate to ally with the Turks in order to escape from the menace that threatened the immense empire of Charles V. Ignoring the "testament of Adam" and the alexandrine bulls that divided newly discovered lands between Spain and Portugal, France conquered colonies in virtue of the natural law, which gives unpossessed lands to the first occupant. Without admitting freedom of conscience, France granted to Protestants freedom to practice their religion in the Edict of nantes (1598). In manifold ways (foreign alliances, colonial affairs, domestic government), profane interests were thereby divorced from religious interests. Each Catholic ruler in Europe imitated the king of France and pretended to be "emperor in his kingdom" and to enjoy all the same privileges that the emperors of the holy roman empire enjoyed.

The 18th Century. As a result of the Eastern Schism in the 11th century and the Protestant Reformation in the 16th, two large groups detached themselves from Rome; but both of them continued to honor God through Jesus Christ. Some modern Catholic states, however, repudiated Christianity and even enfranchised themselves from all religion. The initiative was taken by France during the french revolution. Preparing the way for dechristianization in this upheaval were government regulations that removed from the clergy the charge of civil registers of Baptisms, marriages, and burials; granted authorization for divorce; and permitted, even encouraged, priests and religious to marry. Dechristianization was carried through in 1793 when the French Revolutionary calendar replaced the Gregorian; and all churches in Paris were closed to Catholic services and transformed into temples devoted to the cult of the goddess of reason—a measure that was extended to the provinces. Gatherings of the faithful were forbidden as suspect. Infractions of these laws were punishable with imprisonment and death. By 1795 the French Republic recognized no cult.

The 19th Century. The laws that struck at religious in Spain (1820, 1835), Portugal (1834), and Piedmont (1855, 1866) did not spring from a plan of laicization. The policy in France under the Third Republic, however, carried through in stages from 1879, seemed to follow a preconceived design. Anticlericalism had for more than 50 years fostered animosity against religion, but this type of anticlericalism was sentimental. The preparation of French anticlerical plans, however, was the work of thinkers. Its roots were (1) the rationalistic spiritualism of such men as Victor cousin, Pierre Janet, and Joseph Ernest renan, who admitted the existence of God, but rejected all religion; (2) the atheistic personalism of Charles Renouvier, who deified man and recommended the practice of a morality independent of all authority; and (3) the positivism of Auguste comte and Hippolyte taine, who rejected theology and metaphysics as outmoded disciplines of a bygone age.

Three essential steps can be distinguished in French laicism. The first concerned public elementary education, since it suppressed religious education (1882) and then removed from the schools the religious men and women engaged in this work (1886). Legislation required that teaching be lay or neutral. Jules Ferry, author of the law of March 28, 1882, knew well what he sought, for he declared: "My aim is to organize humanity without God and without king." René Viviani, a deputy in a position to know the will of the anticlerical majority, stated in the Chamber of Deputies: "There is talk about neutrality in the schools, but it is time to say that educational neutrality has been only a diplomatic lie…. We have never had any other design than to make an antireligious university."

The 20th Century. The second step consisted of the dissolution and spoilation of French religious congregations (1901–04). This was open warfare. Voltaire had earlier approved this tactic when he congratulated King Frederick II of Prussia for his proposal to get rid of monks in his realm; he wrote to him: "Your idea of attacking Christian superstitition through the monks is that of a great captain." This passage was quoted in the Chamber of Deputies during the discussion in the law of associations, an enactment known as the Waldeck-Rousseau law, which was very liberal in all other respects save those concerning religious congregations. In the judgment of Ferdinand Buisson, the Waldeck-Rousseau law was the most decisive anticlerical act since the laicizing of the schools, the first public act engaging the republic in a basic conflict with the Church, a conflict up to then characterized by many armistices, peace treaties, and tacit compromises. Viviani did not dissimulate when he admitted in the Chamber of Deputies to the applause of his friends: "We are face to face not only with these ardent and bellicose congregations…. We are …face to face with the Catholic Church." Another deputy declared in 1903: "We are combating religion and all religions, religious sentiment, and all religious dogmas."

These thoughts coincided with those of Justin Émile Combes, who was then president of the council. It was he who applied the law of 1901, forced religious to go into exile or become secularized, and caused the enactment (1904) of a law that forbade all former members of congregations to teach. The third step in laicization, likewise Combes's work, was the law separating the Church from the State (Dec. 9, 1905). The churches in question were the Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish—the three "confessions" recognized since the time of Napoleon I. The goods of the Catholic Church were ordered to be passed over to special associations called "cultuelles," made up of laymen and distinct from the hierarchical organization. When Pius X forbade (1906) the recognition of these associations, the government left the churches at the disposition of the faithful (1907), but seized episcopal residences, seminaries, etc. (1908). Thus the spoilation of the dioceses and parishes followed upon the confiscation of religious houses (1903).

In Portugal, after the republic was proclaimed (Oct. 5, 1910), it required but a few months to accomplish what had taken France 25 years. In mexico, the constitution of 1917 gathered a complete program of laicism into a single article that, among other things, arrogated to the State all authority in religious matters, denied all legal character to dioceses and parishes, ordered the goods of religious to be seized, and deprived candidates to the priesthood of the right to vote. Under the dictatorship of Pres. Plutarco Elias calles, priests could not exercise their ministry without legal authorization (1926), and churches were abandoned or transformed into museums, prisons, and garages. All religious services ceased. This situation lasted until 1936.

Previous to the outbreak of civil war in 1936, spain had for five years engaged in the establishment of a laicism inspired by French legislation. The constitution of 1931 declared that the State had no official religion, envisaged the expulsion of the Jesuits without explicitly naming them, permitted divorce, secularized cemeteries, etc. A decree dissolved the Jesuits (1932), and a law suppressed the other religious institutes (1933), but the republic did not have time to establish the state monopoly over education foreseen in the constitution. The official atheism in all countries under communist rule implies the introduction of laicism sooner or later.

Numerous Church documents condemned antireligious laicism as contrary to the Church's rights and to the natural law. The texts of many papal pronouncements can be found in the work by Ehler and Morrall cited in the bibliography. Laicism does not exist automatically wherever Church and State are separated. In Chile, e.g., the separation was regarded by Pius XI in 1925 as a friendly union. The same can be said of the U.S. because of the strict application of its Constitution.

To avoid equivocation, defensive laicism can be distinguished from aggressive. The former is the heir of past monarchies; it can appeal for support to the Gospel, which prescribes rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's (Lk ch. 20 and 25); this is the laicism of liberal states that respect religions and at the same time carefully preserve the greatest possible independence. Aggressive laicism ignores God or denies His existence and strives to consign Him to oblivion. This is the laicism of totalitarian states that persecute all religions; this is the "plague of our epoch" denounced by Pius XI in the encyclical quas primas (1925).

Bibliography: e. m. acomb, The French Laic Laws, 1879–1889 (New York 1941). h. x. arquilliere, L'Augustinisme politique (2d ed. Paris 1955), l. capÉran, Histoire contemporaine de la laïcité française, 3 v. (Paris 1957–61); L'Invasion laïque (Paris 1935). p. h. caron, L'État contre l'Esprit: Laïcisme ou christianisme (Paris 1955). Chiesa e stato, 2 v. (Università cattolica del Sacro Cuore; Milan 1939). s. z. ehler and j. b. morrall, eds. and trs., Church and State through the Centuries (Westminster, Md. 1954), contains documents. b. emonet, Dictionnaire apologétique de la foi catholique, ed. a. d'alÈs (Paris 1911–22) 2:1767–1810. g. de lagarde, La Naissance de l'esprit laïque au déclin du moyen âge, 5 v. (3d ed. Louvain 1956–63). a. latreille, L'Église catholique et la révolution française, v.1 (Paris 1946). o. giacchi, Lo stato laico (Milan 1947). É. lecanuet, "Les Pères du laïcisme en France," Le Correspondant 277 (1919) 420–444. j. lecler, The Two Sovereignties: A Study of the Relationship between Church and State (New York 1952), tr. from French. m. ligot, Laïcisme et Laïcité (Paris 1926). l. v. mÉjan, La Séparation des Églises et de l'État (Paris 1959). l. l. rummel, "The Anticlerical Program as a Disruptive Factor in the Solidarity of the Late French Republics," American Catholic Historical Review 34 (1948–49) 1–19. j. b. trotabas, La Notion de laïcité dans le droit de l'Église catholique et de l'État républicain (Paris 1961). g. weill, Histoire de l'idée laïque en France au XIX^e siècle (Paris 1929). Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, ed. a. vacant et al., (Paris 1903–50) Tables générales, 2857–62.

[c. berthelot du chesnay]