Synthesis
on the origins, development and conclusions of the debate

 

* This article was translated by Pilar Romo from the original in Spanish. Many thanks, Pilar!

* If you would like to help translating those articles, please see the How can I help? page.
 

The present article summarizes the various stages in the investigation on the authenticity of the document known as “Taxa Camarae seu Cancelleriae Apostolicae”. The reader who wishes to do an in depth study of the subject can see in the main page a detailed outline of all the available material. In particular we encourage the reading of the pontifical texts and the samples of the authentic tariffs (Spanish), or at least the brief text anthology. The other studies (Spanish) taken from several renowned authors who investigated the price lists during years in archives and libraries, explain the different aspects of the question. A summary in form of questions and answers is also available. The photographic gallery illustrates the work by partially presenting the studied documents.

We are grateful for all observations, corrections or suggestions that the reader would wish to make. We will gladly answer doubts submitted by our readers and will update the study with such information. The members of the Special Investigations Team (SIT) can be contacted by sending us a message. Please note that this is a scientific study (see the bibliography), and we will not answer any message based on prejudice or one that ignores any part of the present work.

 

* * *

 

I.  Introduction

 

A thirty-five point brief document attributed to Pope Leo X (reined from 1513-1521) is being published in some mass communication media. This article purports to show how the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church would be selling the absolution of the most serious sins in exchange for a certain amount of money. In brief, it would amount to ultimate simony, and whose author would be none other than a pope.[1]

As we were able to prove during our study, such document sinks its roots in publications of similar tone from the XVIth century. However, the simoniacal price list has been mainly promoted in our days by the work of the Spanish journalist and teacher Mr. Pepe Rodríguez, in his book “Mentiras Fundamentales de la Iglesia Católica”, initially published in Barcelona in 1997. [2]

Not satisfied with this, Rodriguez has also promoted the document from his website. Neither in his book nor in his website does the journalist offer any documentation that could prove the alleged pontifical authorship of this document. The lack of evidence by Rodriguez still remains, even after the publication of our first study, where we questioned the authenticity of the alleged simoniacal document. As of August 2002, neither Rodríguez nor any of his supporters in this endeavor has presented any pontifical document to support the authenticity of the “Taxa Camarae”.

Later on, other publications have also dealt with the simony issue and used as reference the book by Rodríguez.[3] Tens of websites can be found in the Internet where Rodriguez’s version is reproduced word by word, infallibly citing him as the source of the document, and even giving the same introduction to it. Versions of this document can also be found in Italian, English and French, always based on the work of the Spanish journalist.

 

II.  The first steps of the debate

 

Having learned about the Taxa Camarae, we readily noticed its fraudulent nature apparent to any person in his right mind.[4] A group of people interested in historical subjects decided to formally and openly challenge its authenticity.[5] We established communication by letter with Mr. Rodriguez, in which we tried to get from him data about the sources he used to claim without evidence or proof, that Pope Leo X is the author of such a document.[6] From this correspondence it became clear that Mr. Rodriguez’s affirmations on the authorship of the document are totally false.

After the publication of our first study (late 2001), Mr. Rodríguez added our work to his site, criticized some of our points, gave strange explanations to some aspects of the investigation and attacked the host site (www.apologetica.org). As for the debate itself, that is to say, the “responsible investigation of the document’s origin”, Mr. Rodríguez’s contribution was, and still is, worthless. You can read here our replies to some of Mr. Rodriguez’s statements concerning our work during the first months of the debate. We also describe there our current reply policy to possible statements or contributions on the authenticity of the Taxa. We want to make clear that all serious contributions, regardless of their origin, will be reviewed and included in this study.

Mr. Daniel Sapia took part in the debate by submitting documents related to the Taxa. You can see here the critical analysis we then did of those documents. Mr. Sapia has basically presented two documents: a publication by Teófilo Gay from the late XIXth century, in which reference is made to three ancient authors, and a journalistic article from “Corriere della Sera” (Italy, July 28, 2001), that mentions the “obscene and infamous Taxa Camarae”. Regarding the article that appeared in this popular Italian media, it is enough to point out that in a telephone conversation with a member of this team, the author of the article (Gian Antonio Stella, correspondent in Venice) revealed to us that he had obtained the Taxa data through the “Internet, searching in Google.com”. This fact, as it is obvious, rejects altogether the journalistic value of the article contributed by Sapia.[7] On the other hand, what Mr. Gay published at the end of the XIXth century opened the doors for a more serious investigation on our part, which led to other much older documents.

You can also see here the first phase of this debate, held from December 2001 to February 2002. In this first phase, and after reviewing many good history books, papal bull collections and other sources, we were unable to find references to copies or records of the simoniacal document attributed to Pope Leo X.[8] Later on our investigation was centered on pontifical documents from the XIVth to XVIth centuries and in authors who already had dealt with the subject before us. Next, we present the conclusions of that investigation.

 

III.  Teófilo Gay’s references

 

The reference to Teófilo Gay and his “Diccionario de Controversia”, according to which three ancient authors (Polydorus, D’Espence and Audiffredo) definitely state that the simoniacal list of prices is a papal work, led us to check that assertion by going directly to the works that Gay cites. The reader can see a detailed analysis of our investigation regarding these three authors. We summarize here the conclusions reached:

 

Vergilius Polydorus

This author does not even mention the simoniacal price lists. He writes about taxes (taxations) and other aspects of the Roman curia’s finances; he speaks of annatae and other financial institutions of the period, expanding on their origins. He writes absolutely nothing about Pope Leo X or a simoniacal list establishing prices to pay for the absolution of sins.

 

Claude D’Espence

In this case there is a direct mention of a book (whose content is generally referred to) with the name of “Taxa Camarae seu Cancellariae Apostolicae”. D’Espence is frequently cited by anti-Catholic critics to prove their point. However, in the analysis of the texts we have proven that there is insufficient data to clearly state if D’Espence refers in his work to a papal document or a fraudulent document forged by anti-Catholic Protestantism, given to take the real tariffs out of context and then present them for what they’re not. Besides, we have shown that no reference is made to the sale of forgiveness of sins as presented in the simoniacal tariffs, but rather, to the sale of documents. We have also noted that the Pope is not accused of selling the forgiveness of sins. What this Catholic writer actually criticizes in his referenced work is the system of cataloguing crimes, repulsive in itself, which was used for the preparation of legal documents. It was this very same process that was exploited by some to profit from it, by abusing their canonical jurisdiction. The reader must see our analytical study to have a full understanding of the subject.

 

Giovanni Battista Audiffredo

The work by Audiffredo that Gay cites is a list of the Roman publications of the XVth century, the century previous to Pope Leo X. There, we found a work called “Taxae Cancellariae Apostolicae per magistrum Bartholomeaum Guildinbeck”. That is the only information given. Through Audiffredo’s work nothing is known about the book mentioned in his catalog. As our investigation progressed, we can now say that it referred to the fees (taxae) to be charged in that Roman Dicastery for the preparation of the documents. We will return to this issue later on.

Regardless of the conclusions reached by reading the works of the authors cited by Gay, we must state that our investigation has allowed us to become acquainted with the real and official price lists, and thus discover their true content and intent. This being the case, and having positive proof of the tariffs, the indirect testimonials from authors such as D’Espence, Audiffredo or others, they all support the intent of the original documents published by the popes. We will now deal with the direct testimonials.

 

IV.  What the documents say

 

The interested reader must read the other articles published in this site (see main page). By doing this, he can see the conclusions arrived to by some of the best scholars on the subject after many years of work in libraries and archives, as is the case of E. Göller, E. Fridberg, M. Tangl, H. Denifle, H.Ch. Lea, T. L. Green, E. von Ottenhal, W. E. Lunt, J., Haller, P. M. Baumgartner, among the most renowned. Most of these authors specialize in the pontifical financial administration during the Middle Age and Renaissance periods. We will try to summarize and explain in a simple way the conclusions we reached using the results of these authors regarding the existence and nature of the real taxae, from which the forged ones arise later on.

 

V.  Summary

 

This is a brief overview of the issue: the so-called Taxa Camarae that allegedly is attributed to Pope Leo X is not an authentic document. The real documents, from which the false ones certainly were derived, were nothing more than lists of fees for preparing documents, and were intended for the curia writers responsible for preparing them; they were never addressed to the priests who absolved sins. Just like any lie spread intentionally to denigrate, all the different versions of the false lists contain some real elements (namely wording similar to the original ones). These elements are altered, taken out of context, insidiously expressed, with each new author liberally adding new elements that are mere inventions and repulsive. This results in documents that are simoniacal, obscene, violent and worthy of total disapproval, and then irresponsibly attributed to the Supreme Pontiff. According to this document the pope “sells the forgiveness of sins” for a given sum of money, amount that is higher or lower depending on the crime. Only then can absolution be granted, not only for past sins but also for future ones!

 

VI.  What are the real price lists of the Camarae?

 

Before approaching this subject it is convenient to review a fundamental item of terminology that sheds light over the whole issue. The document that we are investigating is titled Taxa Camarae seu Cancellariae Apostolicae. “Taxa” is Latin for tariff or price, fee, rate, tax, duty, and refers to a certain amount of money that is due in exchange for some service. In this sense, many aspects of human life are handled with “Taxae”: there are tariffs for many services that we used daily. Many ancient documents can be found that are titled or deal with some type of “taxa”, since price lists have always existed.

“Camarae” is Latin for “of the Chamber”, in this case apostolic, that is to say, of the Roman Apostolic See. The Apostolic Chamber is a pontifical institution that arises as a result of the freedom granted by Constantine to the Church in the IVth century. By the XIIth century it begins to have a remarkable importance, mainly with the new organization of the Pontifical States. Briefly stated, its function was similar to what today would be a department of the treasury and of internal affaires. “Cancellaria” is Latin for “Chancery”, and it is the Vatican office charged with preparing and issuing pontifical documents. This is in a very brief and simple way. For a more detailed description you can consult the encyclopedias or specialized works (references listed in the bibliography).

In fact, the dicastery in charge of the forgiveness of sins and the absolution of ecclesiastical censures was not the Chancery, but the Apostolic Penitentiary. There were tariffs in this dicastery also, and these were the ones that gave rise to the false price lists.

During the centuries that these Vatican dicastery existed, there were many “Taxae”, that is to say, price lists concerning diverse aspects of the Roman administration. Remember that we are dealing with a true state, just  like any other in Europe (the Pontifical States, which disappeared in the mid XIXth century). So “Taxa Camarae” is not the title of a single book, but rather a generic name, that appeared with every new price list of the Chamber or the Apostolic Penitentiary, either with these or similar names ( “Summarium Poenitentiariae Apostolicae”, “Praxis et Taxae Camarae Apostolicae”, and so on). In other words and regarding our study: when we find real historical documents called “Taxa Camarae” or with similar names, it does not mean that we are seeing the document published by Rodríguez. You must be acquainted with and have studied each individual case in order to explain its content.[9]

Having said this, we can state that there were papal tariffs for the Chancery and for the Apostolic Penitentiary since the beginnings of the XIVth century and they remained in use a long time.

Now then, what were these tariffs about? The correct answer depends on which dicastery had issued it (Paenitentiaria, Dataria, Camarae, Cancellaria). But in general, all the lists were nothing more than tables of wages that officers of the Roman curia were to receive for the work they produced. The prices depended on the material they had to use, and most of all their labor in writing those “litterae” or certifying documents, issued for each of the concessions, benefits, canonries, censure absolution, granting of privileges, exceptions, taxes, dispensations and all the government affairs carried in the Apostolic Chamber, Datary, Chancery or Penitentiary, according to the nature of the administrative act listed in the tables.

As to the documents prepared in these offices, and regarding the Penitentiary documents that made reference to “absolution”, they were of many types. The following must be explained: since ancient times, the Church maintained the practice of reserving the absolution of certain sins to the local bishop or to the Apostolic See, including those that were very grave, of a public nature, and injurious to a third party, or when the dignity of the sinner required it.[10]  The goal of this “set aside” was to show the faithful Christian the seriousness of those sins and to entrust the case to canon lawyers with more knowledge and experience than the ordinary confessor. The whole action results in a canonical process similar to a civil process. Over the centuries, the documents that formalized the results of the process were properly taxed, since their preparation required labor and material, and consequently they had to be paid for. In keeping with the norm back then, the writers’ pay consisted only of what they produced, since there was no such thing as the “monthly salary” so common today. Nowadays the services of the Apostolic Penitentiary are free of charge, since their officers receive a salary independent of their degree of involvement with the document preparation.[11]

This helps to explain that the price lists were not related to the absolution of sins, something done by priests anywhere in the world, but were related to the cost of preparing documents resulting from actions of the ecclesiastical courts of the Holy See, either in Rome or wherever the services were rendered in the name of the Church by their representatives. These actions formalized the lifting (”absolution”) of the canonical censure incurred by the penitent.

Now let’s see what kind of “absolution” the price lists referred to.

 

VII.  “Absolution”: an analogous term, non-univocal term

 

It is fundamental to explain some things about the word “absolution” (absolutio in Latin), word that constantly appears in the real Penitentiary documents, and which distortion is the base for the success of the false tariffs.

The word absolutio does not have in Latin (nor in English) a univocal or uniform meaning, but rather an analogous one; that is, it represents things that are only partially similar.[12]  Thus the term can be used in various ways, depending on the context under which is being used. In the price lists the term “absolution” is used in a broad sense, which can be deduced from the introduction to the lists on the part of the Pontiffs, and also from the internal analysis of the documents. Let’s see a couple of samples in this respect.

In a list of prices from the XVth century (quoted by Göller, p. 177) it is said that the dispensation for priestly orders under the impediment of a birth defect, requires only a payment to the court’s clerks, “and the absolution is granted” (et datur absolutio); after specifying other circumstances of the said dispensation it adds that a total amount will be paid for the “absolution” (pro absolutione). What is the meaning of “absolution” in this context? Certainly not the forgiveness of a sin because there isn’t any! The text indicates that once the formality was fulfilled, and the tax for the expenses to prepare the documents was paid, a sealed letter (bull) was given to the candidate with the dispensation or permission to receive the orders. It was never related to the absolution of his sins, since none were even mentioned!

In the bull of Benedict XII In agro dominico, explicitly dealing with the way the officials of the Apostolic Penitentiary should behave, we read:

 14. […] when the crowd of pilgrims comes to the Roman curia for confession, or to obtain the absolutions or dispensations, then all the Penitentiary members mentioned above… etc.

Notice how two things are listed separately, things that in today’s world are generally regarded to have one and the same meaning: the pilgrims come “for confession, or to obtain absolutions or dispensations”. It is clear that the term “absolution” is not tied up with “confession”, and in this context is grouped with “dispensation”. That is, it refers to a legal procedure in the tribunals and not to the sacrament of confession.

Many other text comparisons can be made (the reader can do it by himself using our translated texts (Spanish) of the original tariffs). In the pontifical documents, the popes explicitly state that the absolution of sins is completely free of charge, and that any violation in this sense is punished with excommunication. In the same document where he publishes a list of prices for the Chancery and Penitentiary, Leo X forcefully prohibits any attempt by the confessors to receive money, “under penalty of loss of rights and excommunication (n. 18 of "Pastoralis Offici Divina" (Spanish)): Is it conceivable that in the next paragraph he would list the prices for the absolution of sins?[13]   This by itself explicitly removes all grounds for a simoniacal interpretation of the price lists.

Later on we will see more about the absolution. Now let’s see what the popes themselves have written on the price lists.

 

VIII.  The presentation of the tariffs

 

We now present a brief comparative table of the different descriptions of the curia tariffs, including on the one hand what the responsible popes said about them, and what is said by their accusers (all boldfacing is ours):

 

 

 

[The reference for these passages can be seen in the detailed presentation of the pontifical texts. (Spanish)]

We include other “descriptions” of the pontifical tariffs that do not reflect the historical reality:

“[In these lists] the absolution of the most heinous crimes is given in exchange for money”. (J-b. Renoult, publisher of the 1744 edition).[14]

“Tariffs for all imaginable kinds of sins”. (M. Jung, Protestantisme Français, p.552).

“The price for spiritual graces”. (Woker, p. 1)

“System of Iniquity ”. (J. Mendham, p. 51)

“[The tariffs are] the various fees that must be paid to receive from the pope the pardon for any kind of sin”. (T. Gay, Dictionary of Controversy, 1994, p. 391)

“[The tariffs are] specific fees that had to be paid to the Church for the absolution of every imaginable sin. […] Once forgiven by the Church, the ‘anointed malefactors’, as they were called, could not be prosecuted by civil authorities.” (Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast, 1997, pp 191-192, as cited by D. Sapia in his website).[14b]

“[The tariffs intend] to set a price in monetary value to nothing less than the grace of God”. (D. Sapia, in his website).

“[The Taxa Camarae is] a list of indulgences for various sins, with their corresponding tariffs” (Jacopo Fo, Sergio Tomat, Laura Malucelli, El Libro Prohibido del Cristianismo, p. 185).

Interestingly, none of the authors who publish and defend the authenticity of the simoniacal lists as works of the popes ever bother to state the slightest reference to what the popes said concerning the nature of the lists. It seems to us that nobody better than the popes can explain the nature of the documents that they wrote. What is the reason for this omission and the inherent changes in the presentation of the lists? We must not forget that all of the detractors take as fact, and so publish it by any means possible that these documents written by popes are price lists for the forgiveness of sins.[15]  

 

IX.  The content of the price lists

 

In addition to the insidious and false presentation of the price lists, which gives the reader a totally simoniacal sense of the document, as already stated in the previous table, the content of them is also different, although with similarities in the wording, as we said before. This is why the fake lists can have a certain tone of “authenticity”, totally superficial and external indeed, but enough to deceive the unaware reader.[16]  In this sense, we observe that as we move far away from the date of original publication, the lists become more creative…. And thus, in the real lists you never find statements such as the following (taken from Rodriguez’s work):

5. Priests who wish to live in concubinage with their relatives, shall pay 76 pounds, 1 salary.

7. The adulterous woman who requests absolution to be free of all process and to have sufficient dispensation to continue her illicit activities, will pay the pope 87 pounds, 3 salaries.

8. The absolution and the security of not being persecuted for plunder, theft or fire, shall cost the guilty 131 pounds, 7 salaries.

20. The ordained person that being unable to pay his debts and wishes to be free of being prosecuted by his creditors, will give the Pontiff 17 pounds, 8 salaries, 6 silver coins, and the debt will be forgiven.

25. The friar who for his convenience or preference would want to spend his life in a cave with a woman, will give the pontifical treasury 45 pounds, 19 salaries.

34. The person who through simony wishes to acquire one or many benefits, will go to the pope’s treasurers, who will sell him that right at a reasonable cost.[17]

It is still surprising that there are people who consider themselves objective and actually believe that tens of popes produced documents of this kind. Or can it be that even those that publish them don’t believe such things but do so nonetheless to further their personal interests?

 

X.  The root of the confusion and the calumny

 

All the misleading publications of the penitentiary tariffs take advantage of the great confusion caused by the fact that the real lists are legal documents, as they relate to actions involving canonical cases. If a person is not at least somewhat familiar with the language customary in this environment, a fallacious reading of the documents makes it very easy to completely distort their nature.

We have already gone over the semantic value of the word “absolution”. We want to insist on this key point of the study, the solution of which paves the way to the correct understanding of the documents.

In his Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique (a classical work of canon law in eight large volumes), R. Naz includes under the word “Absolution” the following information that will be useful to make our case:

“[…] The absolution (ab solvere. Cf. the classic expressions: absolvere domum, to free from charges a mortgage house) has in a primitive and etymologic sense to undo, untie a knot, free of a bond in a material sense, free a captive, to free from a moral bond, from an obligation.[…]

 I. Absolution, judicial.- […]

II. Absolution, sacramental, or absolution of sins. - It assumes a moral fault, a sin, and demands the prior confession of that sin and the repentance or supernatural contrition. It is the sentence by which the competent judge, who is the confessor, remits the sin and condones the eternal pain that was the consequence of the sin. Therefore remits the guilt and the eternal punishment. It is not a simple statement, but a judicial act of internal and sacramental jurisdiction. The author of this sentence is the priest […] who received through the Sacrament of Holy Orders the necessary power to grant absolution. […]

III. Absolution, of censures. - It is the act through which the judge, the ecclesiastic superior or his delegates, frees the faithful of the medicinal penalties that he had incurred, condoning the penalty periods still pending. See the term “Censures”. By itself it belongs to the external jurisdiction and does not concern the guilt itself […]

As can be seen, the sacramental absolution or the means to pardon sins, is distinct from the absolution of censures, which is the means by which the sanctions, and not the sins, are pardoned in a canonical process. It is wrong to confuse one with the other. 

And so, how do the popes, as authors of the price lists present them? They treat them like the fair wages paid for preparing the documents resulting from a canonical process, documents that officially presented the absolution of an ecclesiastical censure incurred by someone. In other words, an act of justice towards the workers, writers in this case, that deserved their salary.

How are the false price lists described by their publishers, who blatantly ignore what the popes said about them? Simply as fees for the sacramental absolution of sins, that is, a simoniacal act of the first order through which graces are sold. The confusion is obvious.

When the pontifical price lists speak of “absolution”, they always and infallibly refer to the absolution of canonical censures. In the pontifical documents, and even in the very ones that contain the price lists, it can be clearly seen that the sacramental absolution was free of charge, and any attempt to receive money in exchange for the pardon of sins was punishable with excommunication.

But there’s more. When in the real lists reference to “absolution” is made and a price is indicated, not only does it not deal with the absolution “of sins”, but it also does not refer to the censure itself, but to a formula that had to be written; that is to say, to a procedure that the curia officials had to perform.

Being a legal matter, the writing was not “casual”, but very specific in the words used and very specific in its scope, as required by the legal process. Any lawyer, court clerk, or notary knows what we are talking about. The verdict, be it of condemnation or absolution, is not a subject of small importance, and the entire content of the price lists indeed refer to those documents, where it certified for ecclesiastical and civil purposes the absolution from canonical penalties that a person had incurred.[18]

 Fr. Heinrich Denifle, O.P., among others, provide us good proof of this. This renowned scientist, priest from the St. Dominic Order, published in the late XIXth century the oldest price list known, dating back to 1338.[19]  In addition to the tariffs, Fr. Denifle also presents a procedure as old as the tariffs themselves, where the different formulas applicable to the various censure absolution cases appear.

As an example: In the price list it is read (boldfacing is ours):

“The same for the document with the “Nonnulli” formula for the converted monks of a monastery, with the “de iurate” clause, no more than five Turonensis.”

Fr. Denifle transcribes from the procedure part of the “Nonnulli” formula, which states:

Forma Nonnulli pro religiosis.

Abbati. Ex parte tua fuit propositum coram nobis, quod nonnulli tui monasterii monachi et conversi pro violenta inciectione manuum in se ipsos invicem religiosas alias personas et clericos seculares in canonem late sententie inciderint, aliqui vero...[20]

Then he later presents another variation of the formula Nonnulli, in this case dealing specifically with nuns:

Forma Nonnulli pro monialibus.

Abbati ver guardiano. Ex parte abbatisse et conventus monialium monasterii tui fuit propositum coram nobis, quod nonnulle earum pro violenta iniectione manuum in se ipsas invicem religiosas alias personas et clericos seculares ...[21]

Another of the entries in Denifle’s document reads:

“For the absolution document of one who deals with excommunicated persons, in universis form, five Turonensis”.

In the corresponding procedure the referenced formula is found, which begins with the words:

        Universis presentes litteras inspecturis...[22]

Fr. Denifle includes other examples of formulas cited in the price lists, which help understand their true sense. Only a few of the formulas mentioned in the lists don’t have a counterpart in the procedure studied, and a few of the formulas in the procedure don’t appear in the price lists. Finally, Fr. Denifle notes that towards the end of the document the following statement appears:

        “Be advised that all the other formulas or documents related either to the dispensations or to the absolution of sins, as the case may be, can be extracted from this procedure and these notes.” [23]

The real lists contain many observations about these clauses, referring to them by their technical name. Thus in the price list of John XXII (Pater familias) it mentions among others the formulas: “Personas vestras et locum”, “Specialiter autem decimas terras”, “Excommunicati contra statuta concilii gerenalis”, “Frecuentes”, “Invocato”, Conquestus”, “Post iter”, “Ea que de bonis”, “Preces et mandata”, “Cum secundum apostolum”, “Justis petentium”, “Nonnulli parrochiani”, “Nonnulli inquitatis fillii”, an so on. Furthermore, many of these formulas have their variations “in forma minori” or “in forma maiori”; to this we must add several narratives regarding circumstances that change the nature of the judged action. Finally, the formulas have their unique composition and length, depending on the person they are dealing with (bishop, priest, lay person, converted heretic, an so on).[24]

Consequently, the price to be paid for writing these documents changed according to the quantity and quality of the formulas to be written, and not according to the type of sin. This is the reason for the extensive and detailed description used to classify criminal cases in the lists, descriptions that only became more extreme and repulsive with time, since the lists showed what type of document should be used in each case.

In the long history of publication of fake lists, a point of contention for their unscrupulous editors is precisely the criteria used in the lists to establish the prices. Indeed the amount requested appears to have no logic, since the same fee is charged for a murder than for a fasting dispensation, or even less, and so on. In reading such publications, one can only smile upon seeing the explanation attempts and the expressions “of scandal” of those editors, who by omitting the pontifical documents, only God knows whether consciously or unconsciously, have no clue regarding such disagreements.[25]

 

XI.  Two eloquent testimonials

 

We present two testimonials that speak for themselves. The reader will be able to see how the corruption that filtered here and there through the actions of corrupt officials, was not only disliked, but also was not accepted by any pontiff in their documents. On the contrary, the popes were the first ones to deplore such corruption and to take action to avoid it.

 

        a.  John XXII (1316-1334) Protestant historian H. Ch. Lea gives the following testimonial (original in Latin) that we have translated and wish to comment on briefly.[26]  The text is addressed to Pope John XXII, 1335, and written by a former Chief Penitentiary Officer (the cardinal in charge of the Apostolic Penitentiary):

“Then may the Vicar of God clean his curia of simoniacal practices… Nowadays almost no poor man can see the Pope: he cries out but he is not heard, for he does not have the means to pay. Hardly a letter of petition in his favor is produced through intermediaries corrupted by money… But your Lordship the Pope should be careful of not falling into such sheer ignorance, for it will not excuse him before God. Correct then the uncontrolled prices charged for the bulls, for writing the documents (corrigat precia immoderata quae accipiuntur pro bula, pro scriptura litterarum). Nowadays the excesses in the curia regarding collection of salaries in exchange for documents and other matters are such (hodie sic immoderata salaria pro litteris et aliis accipiuntur in curia), that it indirectly results in the sale of spiritual graces and benefits, and all the officials play the role of slanderers and extortionists, asking for their work much more than the established prices.”

A very interesting text indeed for our purposes, especially since it comes from a cardinal who presided over a curia dicastery. Let’s point out a few details:

1. It is evident the distinction between the pope, whom is being addressed to solve the problem, and the curia, partially corrupt. It is not right to recklessly confuse both offices and persons. We should not forget that the authors of the simoniacal lists charge the pope with being their author.

2. The poor people cannot see the Pope, precisely because there’s a system in the way, some of whose members are corrupt.[27]

3. Who or what is responsible for the corruption the Chief Penitentiary Officer speaks about? Definitely not the pope but rather certain officers who charge more money than what is allowed to prepare the documents (litterae), or for other issues.

4. The pope is advised not to fall into “sheer ignorance”, since he cannot allow it as Supreme Pontiff. There is no simoniacal accusation against the pope, and much less against his documents, since they are the ones that establish order (a fair fee for the work), but one that is disregarded by the curia workers. The pope may be accused of guilty ignorance, inaction, incompetence, and so on, but never of being the legislator of the disorder.

5. The simony (not of the pope but of some officials) is correctly called “indirect” (per indirectum), which means that there is no sale of graces, which would amount to direct simony. There is certainly the abuse of some officials, by being greedy and taking advantage of the need to prepare some documents for which just payment is deserved, thus resulting in the practice of indirectly profiting from the sacred. Let’s not forget that the fake price lists are directly simoniacal and therein lies their monstrosity, but what really happened were the abuses by curia employees.

6. Pelayo, a critic of any type of corruption, asks the pope to “correct the unreasonable wages”, not to eliminate them. He is actually asking the pope to make price lists and to have them enforced! Why? Because the salary of the official curia workers cannot be eliminated. The whole document deals with preparing documents, not with the forgiveness of sins! Therefore Pelayo writes that the pope should make sure to cleanse the curia of the corrupt people and see that the officers obey the established fees.

It seems to us that the text presented gives a good description of the true nature of the corruption that had filtered into the Roman curia, and was related to the concession of graces: this is not about any type of pardon of sins, but about the abuse by some officials of what they received for their work. To the degree that the pope is aware of this situation but takes no action, it is inexcusable before God.

 

b. Julius II (1503-1513) This is a testimonial by E. Göller (II, 2, 90). It relates to a 1512 constitution by Julius II, where the pope says:

"Many of the above mentioned officials [from the Roman curia] guided either by the adverse condition of the times, or by blindness induced by their greed, or by abusing the tolerance and kindness of our predecessors,.. acting with a loose conscience they don’t even fear the sentence of excommunication,...; they don’t obey the constitutions [of the pontiffs]; but on the contrary, when time comes to receive the tariffs, wages or benefits, expanding the faculties that were granted to them, abuse in all manners and ways everything that those constitutions decree,... daily imposing new burdens and rights as they please, demanding and expecting money, something that puts them at risk of condemnation, injures all the parties involved, sets a terrible example and is a cause of scandal to many, as well as dishonor and discredit of the entire Roman curia".

This was the belief of Julius II, the immediate predecessor of Leo X; his powerful witness can serve as an example of the popes’ attitude toward the behavior of the curia officials. The reader will be able to see how different is this real historical situation of corruption, of events that will repeat themselves with more or less frequency over the centuries, since the Church is an institution comprised of human beings. We contrast this with the fictitious picture that the authors of the fake price lists want to present, one where the pope no longer sets the fees to pay the writers as it should be, but sets the price for the forgiveness of sins.

 

XII.  The different publications of the tariffs

 

Although Rodriguez’s version is the most absurd of all the twisted editions of the tariffs we have seen, it is not by far the first one. During the XVIth century some non-official editions of the tariffs appeared, and it is known that some of them were published to denigrate the Church and to support the Reformation’s movement, as stated in their introductions. In most cases these editions are inaccurate copies of the official editions, with changes more or less important, but with the particularity that they are presented as prices for the absolution of sins, something not supported by facts, as we saw. For details of those editions, first see the work of T.L. Green (Spanish). Which presents a review of works by J. Mendham, E. Göller, and H. Denifle, among the leading ones.

This investigation team worked in direct contact with several Protestant or anticlerical editions (1664, 1744, 1997) or of doubtful origin (1516, 1520, 1545), besides the real lists. In addition, numerous specialized works were consulted, which give the results of long and serious studies on the official and nonofficial lists, based on their analysis of how the text was translated. See the attached bibliography.

All the non-official editions that present simoniacal lists fail to include any reference to the Church documents that describe the lists; they simply ignore them. They also lack references to any pontifical documents, from where such lists would have supposedly come from. The publishers try to “prove” their authenticity in basically two ways: the first one, through the testimony of other people (as in the case of "father Martin" and "a couple of friendly Catholic theologians" and "three historian friends, one of the Middle Ages and two of history of religions", for the publication of Rodríguez (letter of December 3, 2001 (Spanish)). Regarding the alleged 1744 tariffs, where there are lots of pages quoting the editor’s friends and acquaintances confirming their authenticity, that they saw the books, that a bishop told them it was true. Or, as in the case of Gay’s publication, who recklessly quotes authors that merely mention a “taxa”, without checking to see if they dealt with the issue at hand or not.

The second way is based only on a critical analysis of the tariffs, in accordance to what the editors believe they understand when reading the text out of context. Needles to say, this is unacceptable, especially given the availability of third party testimonials that are proven as real, and issued by the authors of the lists in order to describe them.[28]

One of the questions usually exploited by the promoters of the pontifical authorship of the simoniacal price lists is this: Why is it so hard to find those price lists, if there were so many editions? And the answer that they usually give, is that "the Church hides" these documents (Rodríguez says this). J. Mendham in his case, with more initiative than his later imitators, introduces his publication with some examples of the 1520 price lists with these words: "And since for obvious reasons these lists are very hard to find, we think it will benefit the reader if we present here…" (p. 54). After saying this, the reader is invited to conclude that the obvious reasons why the tariffs are hard to find is because the Church prevents access to the documents that contain them, since they would greatly damage its reputation.

Allow us to digress somewhat. It is common among anti-catholic authors, as is Gay’s case, who state that “only after the Council of Trent” that the Church had realized that, shall we say, “something was not right” with the issue of selling forgiveness of sins…; this realization by the Church had been allegedly prompted as a result of the Protestant reformers. Now, let’s note this: the system of price lists (we already know what these price lists were about) was introduced in the mid XIIIth century, according to what is known today, and ended, according to Gay and other protestants, after the Council of Trent during the second half of the XVIth century. According to this position, it would have required some forty five popes, hundreds of bishops, a multitude of saints and millions of Christians to realize the monstrosity that had been published during three centuries… Such spiritual sluggishness! Regardless of all and interestingly, the Anglican Church, which carried the Reform banner against the corrupt popery, adopted the tariff system of the Roman curia to issue its documents on matters of penance, as stated by T.L. Green (Spanish). [29]

Regarding the charge that the official tariffs are “rare”, first we reply that the statements charging the Church with allegedly destructing or at least hiding the Chancery tariffs are pure fiction, and a grave fault since the author is not a book for children but trying to enlighten his readers on a historical truth about the Church. Is there proof of these alleged clerical actions, or must we blindly accept these indemonstrable charges because someone happened to simply concoct them?

In second place, these simoniacal tariffs that according to their promoters would first have been subject to a "cleansing operation" by the Church, and then hidden in some ultra-secret and extremely guarded place, to explain their alleged unavailability.  These tariffs are in fact available at the best libraries of the world, like the Vatican Library (Vatican City) the British Library (London), and the Library of Congress (Washington DC), so that anyone with access to these libraries can consult them. Furthermore, in the ancient papal bulls collections that can be found in leading religious libraries (as is the case of all the pontifical Roman universities) anyone has access to the pontifical documents that established the principles and the practice of the tariff system in the Roman curia. By the way, lacking the proper references, it is hard for a non-historian to find the right document, which also happen to be written in Latin. But this is all inherent with any careful study of ancient times. Our point is that there is simply no evidence of the Church intentionally hiding documents. There’s no need to say more about this "Let’s hide the Taxa" fantasy.

Thirdly, we propose a plausible solution to the question posed by our opponents, less spectacular for sure, and a solution whose merit we leave up to the reader. Let’s put it in question form: what would you do with a small booklet, as this is the format of all the tariffs, with lists of fees for writers, of no value even to the writers because they’re obsolete? Just think for a second and then answer yourself.

Is a cleansing operation truly necessary on the part of the universal Church, operation probably in charge of the Inquisition and the Swiss Guards, using without a doubt torture and fire, in order to banish booklets containing the fees of the curia writers, booklets lacking any value given their obsolescence  and currency changes?

 

XIII.  Conclusions

 

What the reader has learned in this article is but a brief overview of the results of our investigation. What is stated in this article is based on  pontifical texts, on the real tariffs, on the different specialized studies that we have translated in part, or in other articles of our works. They all complement each other, such that anyone seeking an in depth knowledge of the subject must read the entire dossier (the main page lists the key articles, in a suggested order for reading. Currently the material amounts to more than 150 pages. Updates will be added as needed and you can send us a message if you want to receive notice of these updates).

The Taxa Camarae published in our days, brings together environments that are atheistic, agnostic, esoteric, anticlerical and even non-Catholic, with the ephemeral and sad bond of a vulgar slanderous fake. We were right when we initially felt, and with only a little bit of common sense, that such an outrageous document was a crude invention.  What we did not know was the origin of that document, but now we do after a good deal of work on our part, led by professional researchers, consulting the real curial tariffs, comparing them with the fake ones, and above all by listening to what the authors of the real tariffs tell us about them.

Someone may reply, “you want to deny all the errors committed in the past by the Church”, by resorting to the old and childish generalizations. This is not the case. Whoever reads our work will see that we have not hidden the abuses and wrongdoings committed by human beings belonging to the Church. The Church takes care of its past more than any other organization in the world. What we had set to deny –and we now do so in a most emphatic way- is that the simoniacal document attributed to Leo had been the work of Leo X, or of any other pope or official Church organization. Is there someone still willing to challenge this conclusion? They only have to send us the documents that support their position. We will publish in this site any material that is genuine, trustworthy, and verifiable, regardless of its origin.  We will not publish legends or usual places of anti-clerical speech, belonging to the darkest of intellectual attitudes.

“But there were many abuses”, somebody may suggest relying on facts. Of course, there were abuses. Did you think that in the two thousand year old Church all have been angels? Our point is that there are also many fabrications regarding the alleged abuses. Isn’t it an abuse to lie as has been done about the Pope and all the Church with the Taxa farce? And speaking of this abuse, who is responsible? Who will undo the slander? Who is responsible for the corruption that it creates? Will there be a contemporary publisher or promoter of this fraud that when faced with the evidence, will retract his calumnies? That would be the best fruit of this work, and would justify all the work required.

We also want to ask: How many legends similar to the Taxa are in circulation with the sole purpose of discrediting the Church? Whenever voices are raised among Catholics believers who, without denying the defects and abuses within the Church, denounce the circulation of black legends, why are they immediately labeled as fascists, absolutists, obscurantist, deniers, ignorant, sectarians, partisan, inquisitors and a long list of other names, without even bothering to listen to what is being said? Who is the obscurantist in this case?

We hope that our work can be the stimulus for a real search of the historical truth, since not everything is white or black but is interwoven with good and bad actions. Our dear reader will find the proof … in himself.

This investigative team was mainly composed of:

Mr. Luis Fernando Pérez (Spain)
Mr. Miguel Ángel Olmos (Spain)
Mr. Carlos Caso-Rosendi (USA)
Fr. Juan Carlos Sack (Tayikistán)
Mr. José L. Fierro (México)
Mr. Sebastián Aparicio (Italy)
Mr. Alfonso Aguiló (Spain)
Mr. Mario Remigio Vera Montalvo (México)
Mr. Steinar Midtskogen (Norway), and others.

 

Notes