Making statements about the hypocrisy of Church affiliated officials, I find it admirably laughable that Chaucer had to announce a disclaimer to the Church saying he meant no disrespect.

While I wish that he just left “Canterbury Tales” as is, I can understand the pressure he must have experienced in taking back his opinion expressed through the characters he so vividly describes in his Prologue.

The first official to be contradictory to their stereotyped nature is the Pardoner. While people pay him to pardon them for their sins, he exploits this idea for his own greed in the pursuit of wealth. I, not knowing a lot about religion, find it odd that people pay a tithe in church. I am sure I am not the only who wonders why God needs Christian’s money. This idea and scepticism I experience is proved rational through the deceitful character of the Pardoner.

This same idea is also expressed through the characters of the Friar and the Summoner.

The Monk, while more of a likeable character, is described as caring little about hard work and prayer, and instead enjoys feast and hunting. This too is a contradiction as the position of a monk, like the Pardoner is supposed to be thought of a an idyllic Christian. If this is the case, then we can only assume what hypocrisy Chaucer makes of the idyllic Christian.