How Does Chaucer Address the Theme of Corruption in the Church in The Canterbury Tales?
By: MARTIN MUNYAO MUINDE
Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com
Introduction
Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales offers one of the most insightful and critical portraits of medieval English society, addressing issues that range from class divisions to moral decay. Among the most striking and enduring themes in the work is the corruption within the medieval Church. During Chaucer’s time, the Church wielded immense power—spiritually, politically, and economically. Yet, this power often led to hypocrisy, greed, and moral failure among the clergy. Through a variety of characters, including the Pardoner, the Friar, the Summoner, and the Prioress, Chaucer exposes the gap between the Church’s professed holiness and the worldly vices of its representatives.
Chaucer critiques ecclesiastical corruption through satire, irony, and characterization. He portrays church officials as morally compromised individuals who exploit their religious authority for personal gain. Yet, Chaucer’s tone remains complex; while condemning corruption, he also calls for moral reform rather than outright rejection of faith. His work thus becomes both a moral critique and a plea for integrity within the religious institution.
Chaucer’s Context: The Medieval Church and Corruption
To understand Chaucer’s critique, one must first consider the context of the late fourteenth century, a time when the Church’s authority was both powerful and contested. The Church controlled nearly every aspect of life—education, morality, and salvation. However, as scholars such as Jill Mann (1973) and Derek Pearsall (1985) have noted, the medieval Church was deeply entangled in politics and economics, leading to widespread corruption. Simony (the selling of Church offices), indulgence abuse, and clerical immorality were rampant.
Chaucer, writing as both a moral observer and social commentator, reflects this context in his characterization. As Larry D. Benson (1987) observes, Chaucer’s satire is not an attack on faith itself but on the individuals who manipulate it. By embedding corrupt clerics among genuinely pious pilgrims, he mirrors the mixed moral reality of medieval Christendom. This balance between criticism and faithfulness underscores Chaucer’s intent: to expose human weakness, not to condemn religion.
The Pardoner as a Symbol of Hypocrisy and Greed
Perhaps no character in The Canterbury Tales embodies ecclesiastical corruption more vividly than the Pardoner. Chaucer’s Pardoner’s Prologue and Tale reveal a man who preaches against greed while being consumed by it. The Pardoner openly admits his deceit: “I preche of no thyng but for coveitise” (VI.425). His honesty about his dishonesty makes him both comic and chilling—a perfect emblem of religious hypocrisy.
The Pardoner’s livelihood depends on exploiting the fear and faith of others. He sells fake relics and indulgences, manipulating believers for money. Scholars such as Robert W. Hanning (1982) argue that Chaucer uses the Pardoner to represent “the commercialization of salvation”—a system where repentance is bought rather than felt. The Pardoner’s sermon, “Radix malorum est cupiditas” (The root of evil is greed), is ironically self-condemning, exposing how spiritual authority can be perverted by materialism.
Through the Pardoner, Chaucer’s critique reaches its sharpest point. His physical description—“a voys he hadde as smal as hath a goot” (I.690)—and ambiguous sexuality symbolize moral and spiritual deformity. The Pardoner’s tale about three rioters seeking Death but finding gold reflects his own moral state: he preaches truth through lies, unable to live the virtue he espouses. Chaucer’s use of irony here transforms the Pardoner into a universal warning against religious hypocrisy.
The Friar and the Summoner: Corruption Through Exploitation and Vice
In addition to the Pardoner, the Friar and the Summoner serve as parallel embodiments of corruption within the ecclesiastical hierarchy. The Friar, named Hubert, is depicted as a charming manipulator who uses his social skills to exploit both the rich and the poor. Chaucer notes that he “was the beste beggere in his hous” (I.252), mocking the supposed humility of mendicant orders. Rather than serving the poor, the Friar frequents taverns, flirts with women, and secures bribes in exchange for confessions.
Critics such as Donald Howard (1976) view the Friar as a symbol of how spiritual offices were reduced to economic enterprises. His cheerful demeanor conceals greed and lust, traits that invert the Franciscan ideals of poverty and chastity. Chaucer’s satire of the Friar reflects broader public disillusionment with the mendicant orders, who were originally meant to reform the Church but instead replicated its vices.
The Summoner, in contrast, represents another form of corruption—legal and judicial abuse within ecclesiastical courts. His job is to summon sinners to church tribunals, but he uses this position to extort money and favors. Chaucer’s description—his “fyr-reed cherubynnes face” (I.624) and “narrowe eyen”—portrays him as physically and spiritually repulsive. As Jill Mann (1973) points out, the Summoner’s grotesque appearance mirrors his inner decay. The partnership between the Friar and the Summoner in the Friar’s Tale and Summoner’s Tale reveals mutual hypocrisy; both use the language of religion to disguise sin.
Through these characters, Chaucer exposes the multifaceted nature of corruption: spiritual deception (the Pardoner), economic exploitation (the Friar), and legal extortion (the Summoner). Each figure demonstrates how power, when divorced from morality, corrupts the Church’s mission of salvation.
The Prioress and the Subtle Corruption of Vanity
While the Pardoner, Friar, and Summoner display overt corruption, Chaucer also portrays subtler forms of moral compromise in figures like the Prioress. The Prioress, Madame Eglantine, embodies spiritual vanity and misplaced priorities. She is described as delicate, elegant, and overly concerned with manners: “She wolde wepe if that she saugh a mous / Kaught in a trappe” (I.144–145). Though outwardly compassionate, her sensibility is more aesthetic than spiritual.
According to Carolyn Dinshaw (1989), the Prioress represents the Church’s transformation from spiritual discipline to courtly affectation. Her refined behavior, jewelry (“a brooch of gold ful sheene”), and worldly sentimentality reflect the intrusion of aristocratic values into religious life. Chaucer’s satire is gentle but clear—her compassion is theatrical, her piety performative. The Prioress’s religious devotion, filtered through vanity, symbolizes how even well-meaning church figures can be ensnared by social aspiration and superficiality.
This subtle form of corruption complements the more blatant vices of male clergy. While the Pardoner sells salvation and the Friar sells forgiveness, the Prioress sells sanctity as elegance. Chaucer thereby demonstrates that corruption within the Church was not confined to greed alone but extended to pride, self-image, and misdirected devotion.
Satire as Chaucer’s Method of Religious Critique
Chaucer’s genius lies not only in exposing corruption but in how he exposes it. His weapon of choice is satire—a literary device that uses humor, irony, and exaggeration to critique moral failure. However, unlike overt reformers such as John Wycliffe, Chaucer’s satire is balanced and humanized. He ridicules corrupt behavior but leaves room for moral reflection and redemption.
In The General Prologue, the diversity of pilgrims—from the devout Parson to the corrupt Pardoner—creates a microcosm of medieval society. As Paul Strohm (1989) observes, Chaucer’s social satire “locates moral failure within the human condition, not merely within institutions.” By allowing each pilgrim to tell a tale, Chaucer democratizes moral judgment: readers must discern virtue from vice themselves.
Moreover, Chaucer’s irony often blurs moral boundaries. The Pardoner, for instance, preaches against avarice effectively, even though he is avaricious. This irony emphasizes the complexity of sin—truth can emerge from falsehood, and moral insight can coexist with corruption. Thus, Chaucer’s critique is both ethical and epistemological: he exposes not only moral decay but also the difficulty of discerning genuine virtue in a fallen world.
The Parson: The Ideal of Ecclesiastical Integrity
In contrast to the corrupt churchmen, Chaucer presents the Parson as the ideal cleric—a foil who embodies genuine faith and humility. The Parson is described as “a shepherde and no mercenarie” (I.514), a true spiritual guide who practices what he preaches. He is poor in material wealth but rich in virtue: “He was a lerned man, a clerk, / That Cristes gospel trewely wolde preche” (I.480–481).
Scholars like Rosemary Woolf (1970) interpret the Parson as Chaucer’s moral anchor within the Tales. He demonstrates what the Church should be—a community of moral example and pastoral care. By including the Parson among the pilgrims, Chaucer avoids blanket condemnation of the clergy. Instead, he suggests that reform is possible through sincerity and humility.
The Parson’s presence transforms Chaucer’s critique into a call for renewal. In a world rife with hypocrisy, the Parson’s uncorrupted piety affirms the enduring value of true Christianity. This moral balance distinguishes Chaucer from radical critics; he seeks purification, not destruction, of the Church.
Theological and Moral Dimensions of Chaucer’s Critique
Chaucer’s portrayal of corruption is deeply moral, reflecting medieval Christian understandings of sin, grace, and redemption. His clerical characters fail not merely because they break rules, but because they invert spiritual priorities—valuing wealth, pleasure, or status above divine service. Their sins are, at heart, theological distortions.
For instance, the Pardoner’s manipulation of indulgences perverts the doctrine of penance, turning repentance into a commercial transaction. The Friar’s misuse of confession reduces a sacred ritual to social exploitation. As Alcuin Blamires (1997) notes, Chaucer exposes “the moral bankruptcy of a Church that had commodified salvation.” Yet, Chaucer’s moral vision remains rooted in Christian ethics: even his most corrupt figures reveal the potential for self-awareness and repentance.
Chaucer’s nuanced theology thus transforms social critique into spiritual reflection. His Tales invite readers to recognize corruption not only in institutions but in themselves—to see hypocrisy as a universal human flaw requiring grace and reform.
The Lasting Significance of Chaucer’s Religious Satire
Chaucer’s exploration of Church corruption has remained relevant for over six centuries because it transcends historical context. His portrayal of moral hypocrisy, institutional decay, and personal greed speaks to every age. Modern critics such as Helen Cooper (1996) argue that Chaucer’s moral realism makes The Canterbury Tales “a timeless study of ethical failure and reform.”
Moreover, Chaucer’s balanced approach—combining humor, empathy, and moral seriousness—distinguishes him from later satirists. He does not ridicule faith; he restores its dignity by revealing its counterfeit forms. Through figures like the Pardoner and Parson, Chaucer dramatizes the eternal tension between sin and sanctity, reminding readers that true religion resides in integrity, not ritual.
Conclusion
In The Canterbury Tales, Geoffrey Chaucer addresses the theme of corruption in the Church with masterful irony and moral depth. Through characters such as the Pardoner, Friar, Summoner, and Prioress, he exposes greed, hypocrisy, and vanity within the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Yet, his inclusion of the Parson and his balanced tone reveal that Chaucer’s critique is not anti-religious but reformative.
Chaucer portrays the Church as a human institution—flawed but redeemable. His satire uncovers not only systemic vice but also the universal tendency toward moral weakness. Ultimately, Chaucer’s treatment of ecclesiastical corruption serves as both warning and hope: while power and privilege may corrupt, humility and sincerity can restore spiritual integrity. In doing so, The Canterbury Tales remains one of the most profound literary meditations on the intersection of faith, power, and human fallibility.
References
Benson, Larry D., ed. The Canterbury Tales. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987.
Blamires, Alcuin. Chaucer, Ethics, and Gender. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
Dinshaw, Carolyn. Chaucer’s Sexual Poetics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989.
Howard, Donald R. The Idea of the Canterbury Tales. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976.
Mann, Jill. Chaucer and Medieval Estates Satire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.
Pearsall, Derek. The Canterbury Tales. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1985.
Strohm, Paul. Social Chaucer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989.
Woolf, Rosemary. “The Pardoner’s Tale and the Theme of Death.” The Chaucer Review 5, no. 2 (1970): 99–112.
Cooper, Helen. The Oxford Guides to Chaucer: The Canterbury Tales. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.