Christianity In The Canterbury Tales

In Chaucer’s prologue to The Canterbury Tales, Chaucer describes two men who are associated with the church of that day. The two men that Chaucer describes are complete counterparts of what one would expect to find in men of their positions. Firstly, Chaucer mentions a “Monk”. When one thinks of a monk of the church, one thinks of a person who practices religious asceticism, but the “Monk” that Chaucer describes does not necessarily match up to any of the qualities that would come to mind. When most people think of a monk, they think of celibacy, selflessness, nonviolence, intelligence, and humbleness. These qualities have no place in a characterization of the character that we are introduced to in Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales. The “Monk”
Just like the Monk, the Pardoner is characteristically in contrast with what one would expect from a pardoner. A pardoner is a man dedicated to pardoning the sins of others. This action is supposed to be done with consideration for the state of the wellbeing of the one being pardoned, but the Pardoner in this tale seems to be motivated by greed and not compassion. Chaucer says, “His wallet lay before him on his lap, Brimful of pardons come from Rome, all hot…. And with these relics, any time he found Some poor up-country person to astound, In one short day, in money down, he drew More than the person in a month or two” (21 & 22). In these few lines of The Canterbury Tales, Chaucer uses satire to show his feelings toward the medieval church. In describing the Pardoner, he reveals how corrupt the church of the day really was. This man was abusing the power that he had, to pardon people of their sins, to take advantage of people who were not very fortunate to begin with. The general prologue says, “And with these relics, any time he found some poor up-country person to astound, In one short day, in money down, he drew More than the parson in a month or two” (22). There is blatant disregard for the duty and position that the Pardoner has been given in these lines. Not only was he using his position to make money for himself, but he was also using that position to take advantage of people who
The reader can see this when the narrator is speaking of the Monk and says, And I agreed and said his views were sound; Was he to study till his head went round… Must he toil as Austin bade and till the very soil? Let Austin have his labour to himself” (8). In these lines the narrator is in agreement with the way that the Monk is going against what was expected. This goes to show that the common folk of the time, the narrator, expected this from men of the church. The fact that this was expected shows a corruptness in the way that society had learned to view its church leaders. The same can be argued for the Pardoner, that his corruptness was expected, when the narrator sort of jokingly says, “He’d have to preach and tune his honey-tongued and (well he could) win silver from the crowd. That’s why he sang so merrily and loud” (22). The fact that this statement is sort of in jest or said with a sarcastic undertone, goes to show that this was the expected way of