 |
 |
You may want to examine the wide range of penitentials in John T. McNeill and Helena Gamer, _Medieval Handbooks of Penance_. (1930) Columbia University Press, 1990. A fragment of a spurious 10th C canon of Edgar (p. 410) implies that a rich and powerful man could reduce his penance, corroborating the abuse you query. But the vast majority of penitentials throughout the Middle Ages suggests that each person was responsible for his or her own penance. There are situations in which pentitential custom and legal prescriptions overlap, such as remuneration for murder as found in Anglo-Saxon (wergild) tradition. Thus, write McNeill and Gamer, "The penitentials promoted the substitution of pecuniary satisfaction for revenge ..." (35). This practice was ripe for abuse, and at times the commutation of sin by money met with disfavour. But at times it was necessary. The Excarpsus Cummeani, 8th C, for example, notes that some penitents are too weak, and some too ignorant. A man who does not know the psalms yet is required to sing, say, 300 psalms "shall choose a righteous man who will fulfill this in his stead, and he shall redeem this with his own payment or labor; this he shall disburse among the poor at the rate of a denarius for every day" (269). In short, the penitential practices of the medieval church were too various and too complex to suppose they were uniformly corrupt in allowing an exchange of cash for contrition. I hope this is of some help. Steve Harris %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%