SALE OF INDULGENCES NOT PROVEN.

Shannon News, 14 July 1925, Page 4

SALE OF INDULGENCES NOT PROVEN.

JUDGES FIND AGAINST MR MANDER "Did Pope Leo sell or authorise the sale of indulgences?" was the subject of a Keen controversy in the columns of the "Manawatu Daily Times" between Mr A. Ernest Mander, lecturer for the W.E.A., and Father Lvnch v of Palmerston North. As ihe "result of a challenge by the latter that he would pay £IOO to the hospital if Mr Mander could prove the sale, a committee consisting of Messrs F. J. Nathan, H. L. Young and J. P. Innes heard the evidence. They have now given their (verdict, which is that Mr Mander has failed to prove his case. The committee made it a condition of the hearng that the evidence should not be published. Following is the finding of the committee: —

"The question submitted to us is: 'Did Pope Leo X sell or authorise the sale of indulgence?' Mr Mander took up the affirmative, and the Rev. Father Lynch the negative. It was agreed that'the onus of proving that Leo X did, in fact, sell or authorise the sale, rested with Mr Mander.

"Mr Mander set out to prove his case: ,(1) By a copy and translation or a 'Bull' purporting to have been published by Leo X., and (2) by references to well-known and accepted historians. As to the question of the 'bull,' there was no actual proof before us that the original 'Bull* in the British Museum was a genuine document, nor was it proved that the alleged copy produced was a true copy, or that the translation produced is a true translation.

"Assuming, however, for the purposes of argument, that.the original is a genuine document, and that the copy and translation are correct, still such recorded 'Bfull' does not support Mr Mander's contention, there being nothing in the document authorising a sale of indulgences:" "As to the second point, viz., historical reports—Mr Mander has not satisfied us that the reports referred to in the discussion prove that Pope Leo X., sold or authorised the sale of indulgences. On the other hand, the great bulk of such authority. proves that no sale or authority to sell was authorised by Pope Leo X." "We, therefore, unanimously decide against Mr Mander on the question submitted." In a letter to the Times, Mr Man-der-states that until the committee actually sat, he fully understood the evidence was to be published. "The committee then confronted me with a statement that the members were not prepared to go< on with the hearing except on the express understanding that neither party should supply the' press with its. evidence. Unless a pledge were given, the Gommittee would refuse to hear the case. I was forced to agree, under protest. Nevertheless, the position is most-unsatis-factory: I think the public is fully entitled to know the evidence the committee had be.fore it. That is in accordance with all the traditions of British justice. Secret; tribunals and suppressed evidence will not do. I therefore now publicly ask the committee to sanction the publication of the statements and evidence given on both sides at the hearing. My evidence, at any rate, is such as will stand the full light of day."