tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617595825874582595.post5490662534981563845..comments2015-02-11T20:22:11.644-08:00Comments on Stomachosus Thomistarum: CDF and Lefebvre pars II (Religious Liberty and Human Dignity)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617595825874582595.post-50547809195751833262015-02-11T20:22:11.644-08:002015-02-11T20:22:11.644-08:00That is a good point. The Latin was laicistica. I ...That is a good point. The Latin was laicistica. I wasn't able to find it in any of my Latin dictionaries, so just took it as an adjectival form meaning lay. I figured it must mean something like secular or anti-clerical, but couldn't find a source. But thinking about it again, I think you are right it should be rendered secularist.Stomachosushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09985536970467983132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7617595825874582595.post-82091433603585391522015-02-11T19:01:07.383-08:002015-02-11T19:01:07.383-08:00Re: "lay ideology" and "lay intent&...Re: "lay ideology" and "lay intent"<br />Ought "lay" here be "secular" or even "secularist?" I haven't looked at the Latin, but I know in both French and Italian that "laicitè" and "laicitá" and the corresponding adjectives indicate a strict secularism such as that practiced by the French and Italian republics. That seems to be indicated by the context (the discussion of Leo XIII's concerns while writing), and, to my ear, "lay" in English just doesn't capture the hostility towards the Church of 19th Century European republicanism. <br /><br />In any case, many thanks for taking the time to translate and post this. It's much appreciated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com