AND FIRST OF ALL...
¿What IS
Taxa Camarae?

Taxa Camarae (or by its formal title: Taxa Camarae seu Cancellariae Apostolicae) is Latin for an alleged pontifical document attributed to pope Leo X (1513-1521), that presents a detailed list of grave sins and lists a given fee to receive absolution for each of those sins. It would amount to a simple sale of sacramental absolutions, which is flat out simony. The amount to pay varies according to the sin and must be paid to the Vatican Treasury. The document – published in our days by the Spanish journalist Pepe Rodríguez- consists of thirty five items (about three pages). The alleged document is being called the worst example of human corruption and claims as authors pope Leo X and other contemporary popes.

1. Is it true there were tariffs called Taxa Camarae, paid for the forgiveness of sins?

No, such fees are false. The promoters of such tariffs present no credible evidence to prove their existence. The simple repetition of the alleged authenticity proves nothing until it is backed up with real documents. The investigation we undertook proves that this document is a distortion of the real documents known as Taxa Cancellariae, Taxa Poenitentiariae Apostolicae, or similar names.

2. Mr. Rodríguez, one of the promoters of these simoniacal lists, refers to some ancient authors dealing with the Taxa.

Mr. Rodríguez refers to authors that in turn refer to other authors that supposedly prove the authenticity of the document. First of all, we must again restate that the only thing that can prove the authenticity of the simoniacal list attributed to the pope is a genuine pontifical document and nothing less. The simple mention of fee tables in previous works is credible only if presented with the supporting documentary evidence. There is no other way to work in the historical research field, particularly if those referring to the Taxa are prejudiced accusers with clear personal agendas. On this issue, we can affirm that of all the documents we have reviewed, we have not found any of the documentary evidence claimed by Rodríguez.

Furthermore, the list of references cited by Rodríguez in his website as “dealing with the Taxa” (or as he explains later, “at least mentions it”) are fours versions of the same work by Teófilo Gay (1882, 1901, 1944 and 1994) that certainly deal with a very different version of the Taxa without citing any documentary sources; an anonymous anti-clerical pamphlet from 1936 that cites no documentary sources; and finally his own work (“Mentiras Fundamentales…”) dated 1997, without a single reference to documentary evidence (at least as of August, 2002).

3. Did false lists already exist before the ones published by Pepe Rodríguez?

Yes, false lists have existed since the 16th century, having risen in unfriendly protestant environments that grossly distort the nature of the real tariffs. Those authors wanted to provide additional reasons to justify the schism started by Luther. Anyway, none of those versions agree with the one presented by Pepe Rodríguez, since his is the most simoniacal and outrageous of all the false versions of price lists that we have seen.

4. Then, it is a fact that genuine price lists exist.

Yes, genuine price lists exist -not simoniacal– published by the Apostolic Chancery and Penitentiary, among others. 

5. What are the genuine price lists?

The genuine price lists are administrative tables issued by the popes and curia authorities that list the fees that writers should charge in preparing official documents stating the cancellation of ecclesiastical sanctions.  They also included the tariffs for other curia officials. Never do they refer to the Reconciliation sacrament imparted by the priests, which is the only method specifically used by the Catholic Church for the forgiveness of sins after Baptism (besides the Anointing of the Sick).

These lists or fee tables are similar to the false ones only as far as the words used and on the issue at hand, but are essentially different regarding intent: the false lists allege to be price lists for the forgiveness of sins, while the true lists were prepared with the intent to define a just fee for preparing legal documents in the ecclesiastical tribunals, regarding resolution or absolution of canonical faults incurred in some cases of special graveness. In other words, they were the payment to the writers and other offices in the Roman tribunals dealing with preparing and handling canonical-juridical documents.

According to Vatican law and as stated in the documents researched, the penalty of excommunication applied to any attempt to receive money for the forgiveness of sins, even under the form of voluntary alms by the penitent.

6. Does this mean that everyone that wanted to confess his sins needed to get this document, and thereby pay a set amount?

No. The confession of sins was done in those days just like it is done today, that is, in private by any priest in the world, absolutely secret and entirely free of charge. Nothing was paid for the absolution of any sin. This was specifically forbidden under penalty of excommunication, as previously stated.

The penitent had to go to the Church tribunal only when the fault –highly serious and harmful to third parties- had been publicly stated, or in cases –always highly serious- reserved for the Holy See. Once his case was solved, he received the document that proved the cancellation (or absolution) of the canonical penalty. The true tariffs limit the cost of these documents. Indeed, the issuing of these tariffs is precisely due to the desire of the pontiffs to moderate the fees charged by the tribunal officers for their work.

7. How can we tell if a price list is false or real?

First, any historical report of this kind that is not supported by documents must be automatically rejected as false until proven otherwise. In other words, nobody can claim without evidence that certain document (especially one as serious as the Taxa!) belongs to a given author. If we do not abide by this rule, any false document concocted in our days and attributed to the remote past could be regarded as true. In fact, just by having published this false document and having blamed a pope for it, reveals a grave lack of ethical standards.

As far as this investigative team is concerned, we’ve been able to see the real documents and prove the intentional attempt to distort the real lists in anti-Catholic publications, and of these the work by Pepe Rodríguez is only one of the latest attempts.

Second, we know if a list is false or real by comparing it with those we know are genuine, that is the lists actually published by the popes. Several of these are well known.

8. Pepe  Rodríguez says that the Taxa Camarae is stored in a hidden place of the secret Vatican archives, and guarded by  six strict security measures, three of them with Swiss guards armed with machine guns.  This is the reason for their unavailability. Is this true?

No, it is not true. The secret archives are open to selected parts of the public (historians, researchers, and so on), and as far as documents dating back to the Reformation there are none of the restrictions that do apply to documents regarded as “contemporary”, as is the case with all state archives in the world. 

In the secret Vatican archives there is not a single Swiss guard nor security measures –other than the person controlling who gets access, if he has the proper access permit, and so on- and no archive officer is armed with any kind of weapon, much less machine guns (or “automatic weapons” as Rodríguez said later). The real lists are available to any researcher that can prove his credentials.

9. The real price lists state “for the absolution of such and such a sin, an amount not to exceed so much shall be collected". How must we understand this statement? Isn’t this a case of charging for the absolution of sins?

In some of the real price lists –and this is precisely the trap used in the false versions- these words do appear. The explanation is as follows: initially (during the 13^th to 14^th centuries) these lists presented each item in this way: “For the document of absolution of such and such a sin, an amount of such and such shall be charged and no more”. This formula is used in all the items. Then as time passed, it became the norm to omit the expression “the document of”, repeated in all the items, including dispensations and licenses, resulting in the following: “For the absolution of such and such sin, so much”, where “the document of” was presupposed, since it dealt with administrative lists destined for the writers, officers, sealers, and so on, of the documents that stated said absolution or censure.

The word “absolution” in the price lists does not refer to the sacramental absolution, but rather to an absolutory formula more or less long, that according to the circumstances it included several clauses, and one the writers must carefully write in these documents. In seeing the opportunity to make money, some officials would add useless clauses or would “stretch” the formulas. To prevent this type of abuse, the popes tried to regulate the labor charges of the various and numerous tribunal writers. The tedious detail, eventually repulsive, with which the various documents and their prices were being specified is precisely due to the desire of “not wanting to leave anything to chance” or up to the writer.

For example, if a penitentiary writer had to prepare a document that contained the absolution of the canonical censure for let’s say, the murder of a family member (father, mother, and so on), he could not make up too many clauses or stretch them –something that would obviously represent higher earnings to him- since the price lists specifically stated how much to charge for a document that referred to such and such homicide, and the officer could not charge more than that. Thus the highly detailed description of the faults contained in the price lists, descriptions that nowadays we regard as superfluous, to say the least.

10. Why did those documents didn’t clearly state the nature of the absolutions?

It is important to state that there were two types of price “lists”:

a. The lists published in the papal bulls, as is the case of Pastoralis officii divina of Leo X. These were the only official papal lists. The papal bulls specifically stated the nature of the tariffs, that is the items being assigned a fee (preparing documents). In order to avoid any doubt, these papal bulls warned, that the absolution of sins was free of charge and any violation against it was subject to excommunication.

b. The lists that, as a consequence of the papal bull, were prepared by the officers of the curia for their daily use (where new items were added, always in conformity with the papal bull criteria, as understood by the Head of the Penitentiary). These lists do not have an introduction and nothing is explained, since those that used them (writers, procurators and so on) knew very well how to use them.

If we take the lists in group b Without considering those in group a (that is, if we take them out of context), it is very easy to make a highly distorted interpretation of them. All the anti Catholic writers of the tariffs have exclusively worked with group b and still have altered them to a greater or lesser degree. The reputable investigators use both groups of lists and the results are similar to what we have presented in our work.

11. In brief, what is the difference between a “simoniacal” and a “non-simoniacal” price list?

The simoniacal lists define the fees that allegedly were to be charged for the forgiveness of sins, something forbidden by God and the Church, since no one can profit from spiritual gifts. These lists never existed in the Church.

The non-simoniacal lists (the ones that actually came from the pope or their officers) set fees for the work of preparing and issuing documents related to a canonical process. These lists do not charge for administering the grace, but only for the work of the tribunal officers, just as any worker is paid for his labor. These lists were used during several centuries.

A sample analogy of our times may help: the “papal blessing” that pilgrims tend to buy in Rome for their relatives and friends cost a certain amount (and for this there must be “price lists” proportional to intent and so on). There is no fee for the blessing, something that any pilgrim can obtain any time the pope is around (blessings are even issued to the entire word through the mass media). What is being paid for is the certificate, made of fine material and stylishly handwritten, that the pilgrim wants to show his loved ones as a gesture of having remembered them and prayed for them. Just as such a price list for the certificates can not be regarded as simoniacal by anyone in his right mind (even if eventually called “price list for the blessings”, instead of the more complete “price list for the blessings certificate”), the Penitentiary’s price lists would not be simoniacal either since they dealt with maters very important to the interested party and not with the forgiveness of sins.

12. Was the pope paid the document fees?

No, the fees were paid to the Penitentiary officers responsible for preparing, recording, sealing and other duties related to the documents. The apostolic office, in charge of administering the pope’s money, did not receive any of this money. For additional information se the work by Lunt.

13. Why did the popes publish these price lists?

As explained above, the popes published these price lists so the officers in the ecclesiastical tribunals responsible for preparing such documents did not take advantage of their position and charge more than what was fair for their work. This is also the reason for the detailed description in the lists on how much each officer involved should be paid.

14. Didn’t this system promote simony?

By itself this system is not simoniacal since it only sets the fair fees that the curia officers should receive for their work. On the other hand, it tries to prevent simony on the part of the officers. However, during the centuries that this system existed, there were many abuses due to human weakness, something that can ruin anything, regardless of its good merit. There are many testimonials from Catholics and non Catholics that prove these abuses. On the other hand, there is not a single document that can prove, even indirectly, the pontifical approval of such abuses.

Whether a system of detailing the various crimes that a human being may commit is appropriate or not, as is the case of the real lists and the false lists, remains to be judged under each historical moment and the associated circumstances.  What we have done in this study is to investigate if there was any pope that ever produced a simoniacal fee document as charged by Rodríguez, and we have concluded that such document never existed.

15. Why is it that the popes did not stop the abuses caused by this fee system?

Without exception, all the popes were always opposed to simony whenever dealing with price tables applicable to the Roman curia. They published price lists to prevent the abuses, along with regulations applicable to curia officers. The success or failure of their actions depended on many circumstances. What has been proven by our study of the historical documents is that the popes always issued just regulations and were strenuously opposed to such abuses.

16. In the final analysis, doesn’t it really matter whether the simoniacal lists existed or not, when it is know there was corruption and abuses regarding the use of the true lists?

No, it does matter. This is precisely where the core of the issue lies. In the case of the real lists (as proven by historical documents), we have pontifical documents that regulate the administrative operation of the offices in the Roman curia, and specifically regulate the fees for services rendered by their employees. There is nothing corrupt or simoniacal about this practice, and the abuses that occurred were solely attributed to the human weakness that existed in the Church, as is the case with any other institution that works with human beings.

On the contrary, in the case of the false price lists we would truly be faced with an abominable deed, that is a supreme pontiff that is assumed to represent Christ, head of the Church, “infallible”, and so on, and yet officially profiting with God’s graces. This is the way presented by all the authors of the simoniacal lists.

In fact, nobody is interested in the real price lists, given their purely administrative nature. It is the corruption associated with this system that interests the researcher and the believer, as it relates to human weakness and how to learn from it.  On the other hand, the false lists could be regarded as the “peak of human corruption”, and this is why the enemies of the Church work diligently to promote them, even without any documented evidence.

17. How do you explain the fact that the real lists are so hard to find? Is not this an attempt at damage control on the part of the Church by making them unavailable, given the Protestant accusations?

The notion of a Church looking for simoniacal lists to remove them from circulation, or the similar notion of a Church hiding these documents, is nothing but a naked attempt to exploit a lie. It would be enough to ask their promoters for the documents that prove their charges. Any interested person, Catholic or not, has the right and the duty to question this type of baseless accusations.

We offer an explanation based on common sense: if the real price lists were nothing more that price catalogues to prepare certain legal documents –as is the case-, what use could these lists have once they became obsolete? We must remember that these lists, even if printed and bound like a booklet, were no literary works, with some extra temporal value, but simple price lists, dry and repetitive, to be used by the officers in the curia tribunals. Who would be interested in saving these publications? What is the norm in any human environment when dealing with obsolete literature of no value? Where does it end up?

It is not a figment of our imagination when we suggest that the real price lists are hard to find since they disappeared “naturally”, given their obsolescence. Now, these lists have a historical value that became apparent many years after their use, but back when they were used and then became obsolete, what would the curia officers do with those useless booklets of no value other than listing prices that no longer applied?

What was preserved but is totally ignored by the promoters of the simoniacal lists, are the pontifical documents that introduced the lists, stated the amounts, and so on. The summary lists in short form that simply listed each item and corresponding value, disappeared just as most of the useless articles.

We must also note that some copies of the price lists used in the curia offices are preserved in several libraries (see the bibliography and the photographic gallery).

18. Do price lists exist in our days?

No, because now the employees in the Roman offices and tribunals are paid a salary for their work, while back then these employees were paid only for the work done; in the second case the Roman curia operated in accordance with the accepted practice of the time. The Council of Trent and the ensuing reform changed the modus operandi of the Roman curia, since new times required new procedures.

Some canonical processes do require payment since they involve a large number of professionals and considerable work. If the interested party can not afford the expenses, the curia pays for these expenses.

19. Once your investigation was concluded, what is the fact based conclusion regarding the fees in the Roman curia?

When doing historical research, there is always the possibility of finding new documents that may shed additional light on the subject and help to better understand the events under study, and from this point of view the investigation remains open. Having said this, we can state a definite yes, we can definitely reach a fact-based conclusion on the fees of the Roman curia, and the reason is simple: we are personally familiar with the real fees (based on the archive tables), as with their true intent (through the papal documents that introduced them). Therefore, any “academic” approximation regarding such lists that does not include these proven facts, is totally baseless and belongs to anything except historical science.  

From this point downwards we include questions received from our readers after publishing our results in August, 2002

20. Is it true there are papal bulls other than the Taxa that promoted the buying and selling of indulgences for the forgiveness of sins?

First of all, the indulgence issue has nothing to do with the Taxa Camarae. Our investigation deals with the authenticity of a given document that alleges the pontiff sold the forgiveness of sins. Indulgences do not deal with the forgiveness of sins. Whoever insists in confusing these two issues does not deserve any credit in this field, given the lack of good faith.

Second, the confusion between forgiveness of sins –through the Sacrament of Penance- and indulgences is one of the popular ways to create confusion. Regarding the doctrine, teaching, proper use and abuse of indulgences, the reader can see the studies recommended in another section of this work. The Taxa allegedly would sell the forgiveness of sins; indulgences presuppose that the sin has already been forgiven and apply neither to the guilt nor to the forgiveness of the guilt. Therefore we’re dealing with two totally different things.

Finally, the investigative team does not accept statements such as “there are many other papal bulls used by the Church to profit from indulgences”. We can only accept specific and verifiable references regarding this subject. The reader must go back to the books dealing with this subject and look for the references to the source documents that the author must include. If no reference is included, the statement is solely attributed to the author and thus not credible to this investigative team.   On the other had, if there are specific references, the reader can forward them to us and we will gladly check them, comment on them and publish our results in this study.

21. What was the purpose of the “absolution” document? Where was it needed? Who was interested in a document that confirmed the abolution of a given sin? Does something similar exist today?

First let us remember that the issue is not with sacramental absolution, since in this case no document is issued and therefore there is no cost associated with it. The absolution of sins is a private matter, secret and solely between the two parties. The “absolution” referred to in this case always deals with “censure absolution”.

The absolution documents for which a fee proportional to the cost of preparing them was established (see the genuine papal document and the real lists), were the legal proof that a person that had been subject to grave canonical penalties for his actions, had received from the Church the corresponding absolution or cancellation of the censures, after the corresponding canonical trial.

The need for this written proof was due to the importance that canonical censures –such as excommunication- had in that society. A person that had received such a censure faced a very constrained civil life (in studies, work, sacred orders, marriage, and so on). As a matter of fact, even in criminal disputes, the excommunicated person was presumed guilty before his adversaries. The only way to get out of this situation was to obtain an absolution of the censure, and thus the need for a written document.

Furthermore, the absolution document was needed so the confessor could forgive the penitent’s sins, since while a canonical censure such as excommunication was still applicable, nobody could receive the sacraments. Thus the confessor could not rely solely on the work of the penitent and needed to see the absolution document.

Thus, this document was needed in order for a person to again become a citizen with full rights. In order to fully understand why this was so, one must also understand the very close relationship that existed between the Church and society in those times.

Nowadays, and in a similar way, all canonical matters are concluded with an official document, which becomes useful when necessary to present proof of having resolved such a matter before the tribunals. By way of example, a person that has been granted a marriage annulment must receive a document that certifies this. Continuing with our example, the interested person cannot remarry   without this document. Nowadays, these documents require a minimum of work and material so their cost is minimal or non-existent. Such is not the case with the process itself, where just compensation is deserved. 

If you have questions or need additional information, please send us a message and we will update this report with the new information.