The Pardoner In Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales

What good is a pardoner who can’t correctly pardon? In the Chaucer’s satire The Canterbury Tales, the Pardoner is among one of the twenty nine pilgrims on a pilgrimage to the shrine of Saint Thomas Becket. Through a frame tale Narrative, the Narrator among other characters address the sin of the Pardoner. However, taking to account his great amount of sin, should he be granted remission? The Pardoner should not be condoned from the sin of sloth for three reasons: the Pardoner is too indolent to care about others, to correctly uphold his own responsibilities, or to practice his own preaching.
First and foremost, the Pardoner should not be condoned from the sin of sloth because he is too lethargic to care about others. For instance, within Chaucer’s work, the Pardoner himself recognizes that he only cares about himself and gaining money: “I preach for nothing but for greed of gain” (243). Moreover, the Pardoner utilizes his convicting sermons to guilt trip others to buy a pardon. Specifically, his corruption is represented on page 257, after the Pardoner's moral

tale speaking against greed and gluttony: “To have my absolution for a shilling devoutly given, come! And do not harden your hearts but kneel in humbleness for pardon.” Furthermore, this facade of kindness, concern, and care crumbles when the Pardoner reveals that he, in fact, holds no difference for the people he “pardons”. The pardoner publicly announces that “Once dead what matter how their souls fair?” (243).
In like manner, the Pardoner should not be pardoned from the sin of sloth because he is too indolent to correctly uphold his own responsibilities. A pardoner’s job is to travel around the countryside selling bishop approved indulgences. The Pardoner seizes this power as an opportunity for personal gain. With this power, the Pardoner unrighteously exploits sermons for revenge to people who insult him. He threatens, claiming his “tongue will be a dagger, no escape” for people who “hurt [his] brethren or [him]” for “from certain hints that everybody knows, and so I take revenge upon our foes” (243). Moreover, amongst the unholy motivation the Pardoner repeats the same sermon every time he preaches, “and [uses] the same old text bold as brass, Radix malorum est cupiditas” (243). In addition to misusing his own job, he augments to his profit by selling fake relics. The Host addresses his falsity on page 257: “[you] swear they were the relic of a saint although your fundament supplied the paint!”
Finally, the Pardoner should not be granted remission from the sin of sloth because he is too indolent to practice his own preaching.

As stated previously, his one and only sermon is Radix malorum est cupiditas, which means greed is the root of all evil. In not caring for the people he pardons, the Pardoner solely seeks to fill his pockets preaching “only for greed of gain” (243). This directly stands in opposition to his core message therefore exposing his hypocrisy. Furthermore, others may argue that the Pardoner, among his sin, has faith in God, however James 2:17 clearly states: “So also by faith itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” Though the Pardoner has faith, it is only in himself. His carelessness of his sin tears down what was left of his facade; because he does not practice that his greed is the root of all evil. Consequently, his empty ‘works’ reveal how dead his faith really

is.
In conclusion, the Pardoner should not be condoned from the sin of sloth because the Pardoner is too indolent to care about others, to correctly uphold his responsibilities or, to practice his own teaching. This argument holds meaning to everyone who wishes to be atoned for because an imperfect pardoner is an ineffective pardoner.