SALE OF INDULGENCES.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 183, 5 August 1925, Page 15

SALE OF INDULGENCES.

k , FATHER LYNGH'S CHALLENGE. | i COMMITTEE'S FINDING i QUESTIONED. i i JUDGE- AND PROFESSORS GIVE" I THEIR VIEWS. i (From Our Own Correspondent.) ' j PALMERSTON N., Tuesday. Some weeks ago Father Lynch challenged a statement made by Mr. A. < Ernest Mander in one of his series of I history lectures, that Pope Leo X. had authorised the sale of indulgences. A local committee was appointed to adjuI dicate and decided that the proposition | ' was "not proven," and that Father Lynch had therefore not forfeited hie 1 stake of £100, which was offered to the hospital if Mr. Mander could substantiate his statement to the satisfaction of that committee. Although this decision decided the j £100 challenge, another committee, on , Mr. Mander's behalf, decided to take the matter further and submitted his cvi- i : dence to the Chief Justice, and the four j professors of history in the University j of New Zealand. Their replies are as j . follow:— ] ! Sir Robert Stout, Chief Justice of j Newl Zealand: "The whole question turns on the word, sale. Pope Leo X. allowed indulgences of a plenary kind to be given to those who subscribed towards St. Peter's; and that cannot be denied. Was that a sale ? Most people j j would call it a sale, in my opinion. If I a money 'quid pro quo' is to pay for an i indulgence, what is that but selling the I indulgence? You have quoted a great ! number of authorities that I do not see i can be refuted."—(Signed) Robert Stout. Professor J. R. Elder, University of | Otago: "With regard to the proposition j I 'that Pope Leo X. did authorise or sane- j j tion the sale of indulgences,' I should answer: ' (1) That most of the historians I quoted by you are of accepted status and , I reliability. j (2) That Pope Leo X.'s authorisation! lof the sale of indulgences is put for-; ward as a generally accepted fact by all' historians of repute whom I know,, Catholic and Protestant alike. On the' other hand, I tfould remark that the facilities for examining the evidence upon which the statement is based, do not exist in New Zealand." —(Signed) John R. Elder, Professor of History, University of Otago. Professor F. P. Wilson, Victoria University College: "To the best of my knowledge, the historians quoted are amongst the most eminent in history, and seem to mc to prove, so far as it i 3 possible to prove it without the original documents, that Pope Leo X. did authorise the sale of indulgences. I may add that educated Catholics admit abuses of the papal authority at the time of the Reformation." —(Signed) F. P. Wilson, Professor of History, Victoria University College, Wellington. I Dr. J. Hight, Canterbury College: "It is to my mind, quite clear that the evidence submitted on the five typed sheets I is inadequate to prove that Pope Leo | X. did authorise or sanction the sale I of indulgences, simply because it is not ■primary or first-hand."—(Signed) J. Hight. Professor Grossmann, University Collc£P, Auckland. —Teleeram : "Regret delay, due to sudden illness: Writing in day "or two."—(Signed) Grossmann. i * _________^_^__—